User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wikipedia five pillars[edit]

I have unfortunately had to revert several of your edits because they are unencyclopedic and violate Wikipedia:Five pillars. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy and keep in mind that your edits are more likely to stand if you achieve consensus. This can be done through the article Talk pages. I don't enjoy undoing other people's work, nor do I disagree with your ideas in most cases. But Wikipedia is no place to voice your opinion; you must provide references that are reliable and verifiable. Thanks! ThreeOfCups (talk) 13:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Because Wikipedia is essentially an anonymous forum, it functions as a level playing field. That's why the use of reliable, verifiable external sources is so critical. Anyone can post an opinion.
I'm not sure how to best approach removing and keeping out the TypeLogic speculations (and others). I've tried in the past without success, but I can do my best to discourage it. Over time, I'm hoping to get the Myers-Briggs stuff out of the Keirsey articles, and the Keirsey stuff out of the MB articles, but that's tough to do when so many websites treat them as if they're the same. ThreeOfCups (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand that Myers' work and Keirsey's work are related. What I'm suggesting is that from a practical standpoint, the best way to keep editors from adding the TypeLogic stuff, the Berens stuff, etc. to the Keirsey articles is to emphasize their distinctness from the MBTI articles. I hope that makes sense. ThreeOfCups (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)