User talk:Jim MacKenna

Welcome!

Hello, Jim MacKenna, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --Animalparty! (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Thank you for contributing to the article Socionics. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. Orange Mike | Talk 16:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I try to do just that. But here I want to ask you what to do if I cite in the preamble for generalization the same proven sources that are already in the main text of the article "Socionics", and my opponent eliminates them and writes "Rv more profringe edit"? Is there a mediator here? Jim MacKenna (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called "proven sources" you are using, are pro-socionics publications with no reputation for reliability. This is the kind of discussion that should be taking place at Talk:Socionics. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then as an experienced Wikipedian, tell me for yourself whether such works of three doctors of psychology and medicine are reliable sources: Betty Lou Leaver, Madeline Ehrman, Boris Shekhtman Achieving Success in Second Language Acquisition. - Cambridge University Press, 2005. - 280 p. - ISBN 052154663X, 9780521546638?

Are independent academic reference books on psychology and sociology from the countries of Eastern Europe also such sources? Jim MacKenna (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MrOllie, you may not have noticed my detailed explanation of the edits. Please look carefully:

1."Garbage source for psychology and sociology. T. Abashkina is a graduate student in philology and does not have a degree

2. "Garbage source for scientific definitions in psychology and sociology. Podymov L.I. is a lecturer at the Department of Natural Sciences of the Ulyanovsk Institute of Civil Aviation and does not have a scientific degree".

Therefore, these authors are not suitable for considering issues in the field of psychology and socionics. This is clearly stated in the rule WP:RS. If you disagree, we can discuss these issues on the talk page of the article "Socionics". If necessary, I can provide links about these authors. Jim MacKenna (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

a valid reason - your personal opinions of the sources are not a valid reason for deletion. This has been brought up many times in the talk page archives, I encourage you to read them. MrOllie (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copying licensed material requires attribution

Hi. I see in a recent addition to Big Five personality traits you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your comment. I tried not to copy, but to modify the text, to replace a number of words with synonyms, as is usually recommended. This text is slightly different from the original, although it may not be as noticeable. In the future, I will try to indicate attribution under the terms of the license. Jim MacKenna (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Hi JM. I just mentioned this at NPOVN, but you're really pushing hard against our edit warring policy at Socionics. I encourage you to self-revert your recent addition and wait to see how uninvolved editors respond to your NPOVN post. If your argument and sources hold up, I'm sure you'll start to see consensus swing in your favor, at which point you'd be in your rights to restore the disputed content. I'm pasting a templated warning below, which includes useful links to policy/guideline pages.

Hi Jim MacKenna! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Socionics several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Socionics, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I want to explain to you what is happening. When I posted these 20 reliable tertiary and secondary sources a few days ago, Mr. Ollie himself agreed with them. He first removed them, probably by mistake, but immediately reinstalled them himself. But when I raised the issue of neutrality, he immediately removed them. As a result, there was a clear imbalance of sources. I don't even know how to comment on this. Jim MacKenna (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I absolutely did not agree with them. I restored them for technical policy reasons which no longer apply. MrOllie (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Sounderk per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sounderk. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Girth Summit _(blether) 19:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]