User talk: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.  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(User_talk:GrayStorm&#124;Special:Contributions/GrayStorm) 00:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @GrayStorm thanks. I am a noob here DavenportPsychology (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem. GrayStorm(User_talk:GrayStorm&#124;Special:Contributions/GrayStorm) 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: To do this, post the text  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.
 * 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.

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  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


 * What's the username issue? 331dot (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * User posted links to davenportpsychology.com - see: Theory of mind, Talk:Mental disorder postings. Alexf(talk) 10:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)