Laurelhowe

Welcome!

Hello, Laurelhowe, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Stewart Little^talk 19:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator, you would benefit from reading Jung directly. I have studied his work for 40+ years. It seems to me you are exercising a kind of policing that you are not really qualified for on this particular page. Why not let an expert make a contribution? You are not doing anyone a service.

LH (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Laurelhowe. I am going to put this simply: your qualifications are irrelevant. Wikipedia gives no one preferential treatment because they have or claim to have qualifications. If you want to take part in a project that does give credentialed experts special treatment, you might want to consider Citizendium instead. Instead of lecturing other users on your status as an expert, it might be better to take some advice. I have been editing Wikipedia for years, and have managed to get two articles to good article status, so you might want to consider that I know what I am doing. I am sure that your intentions at Carl Jung are good, but the effect of your edits is to endorse Jung's work, and that is not appropriate. Wikipedia is not going to present Jung's views and theories as fact anymore than it is going to present Sigmund Freud's views and theories as fact. Thanks. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Carl Jung

Please discuss changes to the article on Talk:Carl Jung. Create a new section, explain what you think should change, and talk about it there with others. That prevents disruption to Wikipedia. Thanks for understanding.

Related help: Wikipedia:Consensus. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a shame

"FreeKnowledgeCreator" you are arguing for technique over knowledge, which frankly makes me question Wikipedia as a reliable source of knowledge. I don't have the time or energy to continue this process. Again, I hope you read Jung directly so you can understand the depth of his empirical work. It's a shame that you are keeping people from the truth. LH (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not trying to discourage you from editing Wikipedia. Please feel free to continue editing. I am sure that the project could benefit from your work. If you want to continue editing, however, please keep in mind that the purpose of Wikipedia is to be a neutral encyclopedia, not to promote what editors personally believe to be "the truth". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

LH, I really hope you won't be put off.

Wikipedia's process of discussion and consensus does work, but it can be frustrating, especially when you're new to it. Founder Jimbo once said,

“ Wikipedia is like a sausage: you might like the taste of it, but you don't necessarily want to see how it's made. ”

If you get past the initial oddities, editing can be very satisfying. I'm sure you could help us improve the article, and others.

You are absolutely right to "question Wikipedia as a reliable source" - it isn't. Instead, facts should have references to reliable sources - and if they don't, anyone can remove them.

I sincerely hope you'll try a little more. All we ask is, you back up any edits with published sources. If you get past this issue, I'm sure you'll find it a very welcoming place. After all, someone else once said,

“ That which does not kill us, makes us stronger. ”

86.20.193.222 (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)