User talk:JOHN MCKINNON

Help me! Sorry for any misunderstandings, please help me remove my "bad Name" list. narrativepsychology@hotmail.com

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with... Sorry for any misunderstandings. Please remove my name from the "bad Name" list. Please inform me when this has been corrected. narrativepsychology@hotmail.com John Donald McKinnon JOHN MCKINNON (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you ran into is not a "bad name list" but rather a formatting problem with the references. There is no list we could remove your name from. That said, your edits to the article on narrative psychology did not improve the page in any way; their only purpose seems to have been to get your name into the article. That's not appropriate. Wikipedia is not a tool for self-promotion. Your edits have been reverted. Huon (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Narrative psychology, you may be blocked from editing. Melcous (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

life is nothing if not humiliating.JOHN MCKINNON (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC) Template:Xsign --->John D. McKinnonJOHN MCKINNON (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to slow down and understand how wikipedia works. You may well be a noted expert in the field, but wikipedia requires content that is verifiable and reliably sourced. Simply using your name is not meeting either of these criteria. Continuing to make the same changes to the article without understanding the issues could very well lead to you being blocked from editing (See WP:EW). You have also continued to introduced formatting errors into the article as well which is not helping your case. Melcous (talk) 07:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Narrative psychology while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 07:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Narrative psychology shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Linguist If you reply to me here, please add {{ping|Linguist111}} to the start of your message 10:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC) -tHANK YOUJOHN MCKINNON (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)JOHN MCKINNON[reply]

Clarification

I suspect that the problems you have been causing are a result of inexperience (of Wikipedia) rather than deliberate rule- breaking, so I will try to point you in the right direction.

I note that you state that you hold a high qualification in narrative psychology, and I have no reason to doubt this. But when you are adding factual content here, and this is the only content we encourage, this content must be supported by good quality, impartial, verifiable third-party references. This means that you cannot use your own work as a reference, nor can you quote work which you yourself have undertaken, unless you can demonstrate appropriate references as I describe. I ask that you read WP:OR and WP:AUTOBIOG.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!!!JOHN MCKINNON (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)JOHN MCKINNONJOHN MCKINNON (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)Response to first paragraph moved down here to make it clear who said what. The following is a response to the second paragraph.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I, very much, thank you. JOHN MCKINNON (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)JOHN MCKINNONJOHN MCKINNON (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

As Anthony Bradbury has said above and assuming good faith faith on your part, there are still many issues with your editing.

You have repeatedly inserted content that is not sourced and based on your own original research, as well as self-promotional.
You have also repeatedly inserted formatting that is incorrect, as well as multiple grammatical issues.
Some of your edit summaries seem to indicate a claim of "ownership" over the article, which is not how wikipedia works.
I also note that you have apparently edited the article using multiple accounts and IP addresses (for example, John D. McKinnon (talk · contribs); NARRATIVEPSYCHOLOGY (talk · contribs)) in apparent violation of wikipedia's policies, and that at least one of these addresses has recently been blocked for edit warring on this article (71.13.115.228 (talk · contribs)).

All of this is behaviour that will lead to you being blocked from editing if you continue. Rather than reporting you, I am suggesting that you take a break and walk away from this article for awhile. If you want to continue editing wikipedia, please read the relevant guidelines and policies and make sure you understand what is required (particularly in terms of verifiability and referencing) before you continue. If you continue to do the things I have noted here, you will find yourself reported and likely blocked. Thank you, Melcous (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your help desk question

You may find additional information here that is not on your talk page.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm JustBerry. I noticed that in this edit to Narrative psychology, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. JustBerry (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Narrative psychology, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. "Pepper" @ 00:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Narrative psychology. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Narrative psychology was changed by JOHN MCKINNON (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.890779 on 2016-12-26T00:57:56+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Your recent editing history at Narrative psychology shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. WNYY98 (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Katie^talk 03:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]