User talk:ThreeOfCups

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

Welcome to my talk page! I'm currently in the process of standardizing the articles for the Myers-Briggs types, and I'm adding the missing articles for the Keirsey role variants (some are currently redirects to the Myers-Briggs types). As time permits, I'll add more info to the Keirsey role variant articles, which are currently pretty sparse. Once that's done, perhaps some of the Keirsey info could be deleted from the Myers-Briggs articles. Not sure the info needs to be duplicated. Please feel free to share your ideas; I'm a big believer in collaboration and consensus. ThreeOfCups (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Finished standardizing the articles for the Myers-Briggs types and adding the missing articles for the Keirsey role variants. ThreeOfCups (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

MBTI pages[edit]

Hi Three of Cups, I've been watching your work, well done on standardising the MBTI pages, they were a mess and full of a lot of crap.--rakkar (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! ThreeOfCups (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Backed up, too. the work you're doing seems to be great... I've just fell on your page, and I've learned that I like serial comma too! I wasn't even sure it was permitted... I'm using it all the time, though. Twipley (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Judgment vs. judgement[edit]

Your changes of judgement to judgment breaches WP:RETAIN, I think.Martinlc (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The Myers-Briggs articles are written in American English and have used the spelling "judgment" for years. These articles are based on the works of Isabel Briggs Myers, who was American and used the spelling "judgment" in her works. The spelling was not chosen arbitrarily. The previous editor is the one who either violated WP:RETAIN, or did not realize that "judgment" is the preferred spelling in American English. ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Keirsey Temperaments[edit]

Hi Three of Cups, re your message to me: (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))

I appreciate your work on the wikipedia pages on my father and my father's work. I don't work on Wikipedia much, so I am not sophisticated in the ways of Wikipedia, except I try occasionally to fix or remove blatant self-serving -- sorry but I must use the word "crap" -- on those pages. I did get pissed off recently, because I was sick and tired from the years where crap keeps popping up. Somebody (probably from TypeLogic) added stuff that had no basis and was just plain garbage, and I lost it for a moment. I try not to remove too much stuff, so in that one case I let my anger show rather than just deleting material. I deleted the material now, TypeLogic material is wrong, wrong, wrong. Worse than random.

On the other hand, all of Wikipedia is opinion. I have had battles in the past on my father's page with Jungian zealots. "Conceptual framework" is a phrase that grates with me. My father does not regard Jung's material with any systemic value. But oh, well. Luckily, I only have to only monitor twenty pages. The MBTI pages are hopeless - Beren's crew, Socionics, TypeLogic, yada yada, are doing their number on them, I can't and don't care to do those battles. Good luck with them. (talk) 04:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)David Keirsey

ThreeOfCups One cannot separate Keirsey and Myers' work because they are related. Isabel (and not Jung) recognized the original sixteen types and wrote them down for my father to recognize their significance. Yes, Myers and Jung had no notion of the Four Temperaments, but the idea of inherent differences in people is the most important concept, hence the value of, as Isabel said, recognizing "Gifts Differing". (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC) David Keirsey

Accuracy of MBTI[edit]

Does anyone know the source of the statement that the MBTI is 70% accurate according to its manual? I have a copy of the 2nd edition (1985), and it says 75%. Can someone with a copy of a newer version either confirm or refute the 70% figure?

Templates substituting for article text[edit]

I notice you've just created two templates, Template:MBTI Cognitive Functions and Template:MBTI Instrument, that you're using to insert chunks of article text into a number of MBTI-related articles. This isn't proper usage of templates according to Wikipedia's guidelines (see Wikipedia:Template namespace) for a couple of reasons; the text is hard for new editors to find and edit, the article's contents are harder to export, the history of the text is harder to find, and it results in a lot of unnecessary verbiage and duplication of content. In the case of these two templates I can suggest a couple of approaches that might work. One, you could move each of these templates into the main article space to become short articles in their own right, and then in the places where they used to be transcluded you could use the {{main}} template to provide links to them for people to follow up on the additional detail. Or two, you could subst the contents of the templates into all of the articles they're used in and allow the text to be trimmed and customized to be specific to each usage. I'm not very knowledgeable about this field so I'm not really sure which is better, but I think the easiest and most generally useful approach is the first one - if we turn these templates into articles they'll have much more scope to grow in detail without causing other pages to grow along with them. What do you think? I can handle all the technical aspects either way, I just figured I should give you a heads-up here since you created them only a matter of days ago and solicit your input. Bryan Derksen (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree with you, Bryan Derksen, but according to the following, my usage of the templates is appropriate:
I've included instructions for accessing and editing the templates in the talk pages in each of the articles. I've spent a lot of time editing these pages to add and update the templates, so please don't delete them. I want to follow the rules and make things as easy for other editors as possible; however, when the same content is used in 16 articles, it doesn't make sense to edit the text 16 times whenever it changes.
Neither of your suggestions would be a good choice in the context of these articles. ThreeOfCups (talk) 04:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you've misinterpreted the purpose of the page you're basing that on. The page you're linking to is a copy of a help page from the "meta" wiki, which is intended to describe how MediaWiki wikis can be used but not necessarily how it should be used. The page I linked to is a style guideline for the English Wikipedia, and so is of greater priority in deciding what the contents of a page should be and how the contents should be formatted. Every time I've come across this sort of thing (article body text being transcluded via template) there's been a strong consensus to rearrange the text so that it's not being done that way any more and I suspect adding instructions to talk pages is unlikely to change that.
Note that the solution I proposed as my preferred one, making these templates into separate articles in their own right, would not require you to edit text 16 times when you wanted to change it. There would only be one single copy of each template's text, in the articles that they get turned into. So I think you're misinterpreting what my proposal was, too. Each article that currently transcludes the text of the templates would instead link to the text of the templates.
I'm willing to do all the work of changing the layout over to the style-guide-compliant version. Would you like me to create an example for you to see what it is that I'm talking about? Bryan Derksen (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Please don't make any changes to all the work I've done. I need time to think about this and come up with a solution. So far, no one who edits the articles has objected to the use of the templates. I do understand your suggestions. I don't have time right now to explain to you why they won't work for these articles. I'm perfectly willing to do the work in a manner that will be acceptable, but not today. ThreeOfCups (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, bear in mind that we all agree to allow our work to be "edited mercilessly". :) But there isn't a big rush on this, I can wait until you've got some time. Oh, and I do appreciate your contributions, and I don't think any of your work so far need be lost. This is just an issue of how it should be presented. Bryan Derksen (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be no clear consensus in the Talk pages of the Wikipedia:Template namespace that the way I'm using the templates is a violation of policy. The problem with putting the information into the main MBTI article is that I'm using the templates for introductory paragraphs, and the type-specific information that follows makes no sense without them. Within the type articles, I've added comments containing URL links to the templates, so other editors should have no trouble making changes. For now at least, this is the approach I'm going to take, for the simple reason that this works, and nothing else that's been suggested does. Perhaps a better alternative will present itself; or perhaps, once these articles are standardized and fleshed out, it will be possible to substitute the template text for the template. ThreeOfCups (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Jung Type Indicator[edit]

Three of Cups: Your entry on the 'Jung Type Indicator' is unfortunately confusing the Jung Type Indicator (which comes from Psytech an outfit I don't know anything about) and the Jungian Type Index which was indeed written by Hallvard Ringstad and Thor Ødegård two close friends of mine.

Facts: The Jung Type Indicator IS NOT the Jungian Type Index and you confuse the two. The Jungian Type Index was created by Hallvard Ringstad and Thor Ødegård. I don't know who created the Jung Type Indicator. The Jungian Type Index, its authors, nor its publishers have ever been sued regarding the JTI. JTI is registered trademark for the Jungian Type Index.

You quote a 'Jung Type Indicator' technical mannual suggesting that the authors (implied to be Hallvard and Thor) said something that they did not. Since Hallvard and Thor have nothing to do with Psytech or the Jung Type Indicator, please do not quote 'the authors themselves' as you do and then refer to a text (and and instrument) with which these authors have nothing to do. This is grossly mistaken and since your citation involves 'the controversy over plagiarism' it is potentially harmful. If the Jung Type Indicator has been sued (or not) by anyone, I do not know. But the Jungian Type Index, written by Ringstad and Ødegård, has never been challenged and won't be. It is an entirely different tool than MBTI or any other tools that attempt to capture individual preferences for using specific psychological functions and attitudes postulated by Carl Jung. The 'underlying dimensions' you speek about are the psychological functions and attidudes postulated by Carl Jung, which are the same ones that the Kiersey Temperment indicator, Myers Briggs Type indicator, and other 'Psychological Type' questionnaires address. Assessing these preferences for using psychological functions or attitudes, regardless of the origin of the postulation of these functions or attitudes, is not an act of plagiarism for JTI just as much as it is not one for Kiersey and others who do it. In fact, different tools are more or less efficient in capturing preferences and attitudes, and the JTI is a marked improvement of the fantastic contributions of Myers-Briggs, Kiersey and others.

We have made some edits to your entry, making the assumption that it is the Jungian Type Index written by HR and TØ you wish to address since the majority of your text refers to them and users of their JTI in Denmark. The more negative text, regarding legal and copyright 'controversies' has been removed since that text is completely irrelevant to the JTI. I respectfully request that you edit the title of the entry to 'Jugian Type Index' and change it from 'Jung Type Indicator'. Patrick Sweet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SweetPatrick (talkcontribs) 12:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for the confusion. I've created a new article for the Jungian Type Index, and removed that information from the Jung Type Indicator article. ThreeOfCups (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Madelyn Durham's Death[edit]

I thought I had entered the correct date! Thanks for fixing the incorrect date for her death.

L337*P4wn 22:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Zeituni Onyango re-written[edit]

This article has been rewritten. Please visit the AfD discussion to see if your concerns have been addressed. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 22:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


Sorry about that, I thought it was just a typo. Thanks for letting me know. Colonies Chris (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

KTS Categorisation[edit]

follow up from:

Hello ThreeOfCups. I was not quite sure if I'm fundamentally cooperative or utilitarian. I may have been influenced by the schooling system, where they value most the "thinking" (though that's not in Keirsey's terms), though when taking decisions, I like to weigh the good and the bad, like most of us, but it just seems to me I'm using as much my "feeling" than my "thinking." That is, being a proponent of utilitarianism myself, I'm tempted to prime the "overall happiness" factor over all over pragmatic factors. But in doing so, I'm also aiming for cooperation. In fact, I like to decide on my own, but according to logic and to what I feel is right or wrong at the same time. I find myself more on the INFP side, but when I'm stuck inside the education system (I'm currently undertaking psychology studies), it seems like the F is just devalued.

Furthermore, I'm personally trying to individualize myself, and to work on my own weaknesses. For example, I think I'd gain to work with the extraverted inside of me. Following the logic, wouldn't an individualized person be no more E than I, no more P than J, etc., etc.? Twipley (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks, ThreeOfCups. The last half of the last paragraph has been particularly helpful to me. P.S. I could feel the INFJ in you while reading this :) Twipley (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Brain Types[edit]

Hi to a fellow MBTI INFJ. I saw your comments on my brain typing article in the 'Articles for deletion' commentary section. I am wondering what specifics about the article you don't like. Also, I did add a suggestion on how I might be able to make the article better and apparently less biased toward brain typing since you and a couple of others disapprove of it and think the article is too much in favor of brain types. Let me know what you think. --Khendra1984 (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: I just worked together with the user N Shar, who had concerns similar to yours, to improve the brain types article. I think you will like it better. Khendra1984 (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


How can I be expected to take seriously a person who doesn't care about proper grammar and thinks "they" can be used to mean one person? LOL. -- (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's what grammarian Patricia T. O'Connor says in her book, Origins of the Specious:

What we need is an all-purpose pronoun for people that can be masculine or feminine, singular or plural. As it turns out, we once did have such a word. For hundreds of years, people used "they," "them," or "their" to refer to people in general, whether one or more, male or female…Great writers, including Shakespeare, Defoe, Swift, Fielding, Richardson, Goldsmith, and Johnson all made great use of sexless, numberless 'they/them/their" without raising an eyebrow. It wasn't until the end of the eighteenth century, when all of them were late as well as great, that eyebrows were raised…By the early nineteenth century, the prohibition against using "they" in a singular way was firmly entrenched in standard English…Meanwhile, great writers—like Byron, Shelley, Austen, Scott, Thackery, Eliot, Dickens, Trollope, Kipling, Wharton, Shaw, Auden, and more recently Doris Lessing—have continued to use "they" and its relatives in a singular sense, grammarians be damned…So many people are now using "they" in the old singular way, especially in Britain, that dictionaries and usage guides are taking a critical look at [the] prohibition. In fact, the newest edition of [Fowler's Modern English Usage]…suggests it's only a matter of time before this usage becomes standard English.

If it's good enough for Shakespeare and Austen, it's good enough for me. ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


Thanks man for your comment didnt knew who to ask or where Is there a section about copyright where I could take a look? Raffethefirst (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

About the appropriateness of the site Celebrity Types for Wikipedia[edit]

Hi ThreeOfCups, I'm one of the two users who added links to last week. First, I want to say that I really appreciate your diligent care for the MBTI-related pages. Wikipedia is such an amazing resource thanks to editors like you! :) My instinct was/is therefore to defer to your judgment in removing the links, however, since the user Wavelength (who is is a perfect stranger to me and an experienced Wikipedian from the look of it) also thought it was an appropriate link to add, I'd like to hear your rationale. What is the difference between e.g. Personality Page and Celebrity Types that renders the former appropriate and the latter site inappropriate for Wikipedia? Possesseva (talk) 13:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reply. I responded on my own talk page, but I'm not sure whether the custom is actually for me to reply here, or whether I can count on you watching my talk page now? Possesseva (talk) 10:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm still not sure that you're watching my talk page, so here's another notification that I replied there. Possesseva (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm still not sure that you're watching my talk page, so here's yet another notification that I replied there. Possesseva (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
You are an integral warrior in the fight to reduce conflict, I hope your efforts lead to greater personal fulfillment, both for others and yourself. Xyzbb1253 (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)