DavenportPsychology

May 2024

Please don't link to your own work, as it violates Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. You may find it helpful to read the guideline on conflict of interest. JBW (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@JBW thanks I am new to Wikipedia as of tonight. If I have useful articles or research, I guess they are not interested due to a possible conflict? DavenportPsychology (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. [1] MrOllie (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@MrOllie the external link was directly related to the topic and was meant to be a citation, not for marketing, and contained links to original sources of research on the topic. DavenportPsychology (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Not of that is really relevant: you cannot be adding links to your own website, both because it is considered spamming on Wikipedia, and because your site does not meet Wikipedia's sourcing requirements (WP:RS). MrOllie (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@MrOllie sorry total noob. not sure the appropriate level of conversation here. I publish articles related to my area of expertise. We try to explore all sides of topics and back up the exploration with peer reviewed published research. Some of our articles are for work we have had published in peer reviewed journals. I understand the need for neutrality, no spam, and identification of any potential conflict of interest. The intent of our blog is to share expert knowledgeable.

We replaced a dead link with a working publication to enhance the quality of the entry. Our source that discusses both sides and is presenting either peer reviewed research or citing peer reviewed published articles.

I will lurk a bit more to get a feel for things. DavenportPsychology (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

We cannot use your self published website as a citation. Blogs are not considered to be acceptable sources here, especially for medical content.

And when you find a dead link, that is not an opportunity to substitute a link to your own website - that is an extremely common justification used by link spammers. We do not allow it here. MrOllie (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@MrOllie helpful! no pressure to answer? with the example of the dead link I updated in error to my blog, would it have been acceptable to change it to something like: https://academic.oup.com/book/6734/chapter-abstract/150827223?redirectedFrom=fulltext DavenportPsychology (talk) 03:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Print citations do not require URLs. When there is a fully specified citation that someone could find (at a library, for example) you should not replace it at all. MrOllie (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Short discriptions

Please read WP:SHORTDESC. In particular, keep descriptions under 40 characters. Thanks. GrayStorm^{(complaints department|stalk me)} 00:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@GrayStorm thanks. I am a noob here DavenportPsychology (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

No problem. GrayStorm^{(converse|look at what i do)} 01:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Your account has been indefinitely blocked from editing because it has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Also, your username gives the impression that the account represents a business, organisation, group, or web site, which is against the username policy.

If you intend to make useful contributions instead of promoting your business or organization, you may request unblock and a username change. In your reasons, you must:

• Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the paid-contribution disclosure requirement; and
• Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked; and
• Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked; and
• Provide a new username.

To do this, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with your new username and replace the text "Your reason here" with your reasons to be unblocked.

Please note that the new username you choose cannot already be taken and in use by another account. You can search to see if the username you'd like to choose is available. If the search returns that no global account with that username exists, that means it is still available.

Appeals: If, after reviewing the guide to appealing blocks, you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal it by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your reason here" with the reasons you believe the block was an error, and publish the page. Alexf^(talk) 11:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Alexf

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

DavenportPsychology (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Requested username:

CharlesDavenportPsyD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I am totally new here. in chats last night I received a lot of useful information that helps me understand in particular, what Wikipedia is looking for. I believe I have a lot of passion on my topic areas of interest in particular related to many things psychology. I'm not sure if you're able to see my contributions elsewhere to this point on Wikipedia? however, there is some very exciting and useful information I tried to provide on Albert Einstein. I intend to look for simple things on Wikipedia I can clean up such as giving descriptions for photographs as well as more notable contributions like the addition to Albert Einstein's history and some contributions he made with Sigmund Freud. I think I need to lurk on Wikipedia a bit longer to understand how it works. If you are able to see any of my chats with other users you will see I had no malicious intent was just not well informed. My apologies for that. I Saw a content from Wikipedia saying feel free to make changes if you make a mistake another user will fix it for you. So I felt confident to make contributions. I will now learn more before making additional contributions. thank you for considering my request to be allowed to contribute to Wikipedia

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Alexf What's the username issue? 331dot (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  {{yo:331dot}} User posted links to davenportpsychology.com - see: Theory of mind, Talk:Mental disorder postings. Alexf^(talk) 10:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  @331dot: Extra ping because it looks like Alexf's was mis-formatted. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, I missed that, thanks. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)