Possesseva

Username changes

Sorry, but it doesn't work this way. Please use renaming.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Your link, which I followed before creating my new account, explicitly says to do so if one had made very few edits! I was following directions! Possesseva (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

My bad. Still, in the future, just get a rename. It was good because you had few edits. But when you get more, just a reminder to have your username mechanically changed.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll keep that in mind if I ever need another name change. :)

Old name

I redirected the talk page of your old username to here so everything will be in one place. If you need any help around wikipedia just give me a shout on my talk page. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 00:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

And now for a proper welcome...

Hello, Possesseva! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! LadyofShalott 01:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Celebrity Types

Thanks for your question. The Celebrity Types website is pure speculation and utterly unencyclopedic. Personality Page at least has some research behind it. Guessing about other people's MBTI types may be fun, but it's clear violation of the MBTI precepts and ethics. ThreeOfCups (talk) 02:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me! I have two follow-up questions, if you don't mind. 1) What's the research behind Personality Page (or TypeLogic for that matter)? In my understanding, it's just random knowledgeable people writing their own descriptions of the types. 2) What's the violation of ethics, exactly? Both TypeLogic and Keirsey also guess at famous people's types. Possesseva (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The violation of ethics is based on the MBTI Manual. TypeLogic doesn't represent the MBTI, and Keirsey is something altogether different. The MBTI rules for ethical use clearly state that only the respondent is qualified to determine his or her best-fit type.

Regardless of whether you consider Personality Page to be scholarly enough to qualify to be included, the Celebrity Types website clearly is not. See Wikipedia:Spam#Inclusion of one spam link is not a reason to include another. ThreeOfCups (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

As I interpret the ethical guidelines, they speak to the outcome of an administration of the MBTI and not to the illegitimacy of guessing at famous people's types. An ethical problem arises only when an MBTI administrator would have either the result or the administrator's own judgment overrule that of the respondent. There is no such issue when guessing at famous people's types. The guess is simply an interpretation of their behavior, just like all the other commentary out there.

Does this mean that you concede that Personality Page is also a spam link, and if so, what is your justification for having it on Wikipedia? (I realize this is off-topic to the current heading. I will be happy to ask the question again under a new heading if you prefer.) Possesseva (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

MBTI isn't based on behavior, it's based on cognitive processes, which only the respondent can know. But it's a moot point, because the link is spam regardless of whether it's ethical to make unsubstantiated claims about people you don't know. Also, I don't endorse the Personality Page link. I wouldn't argue one way or another as to whether it's spam. I have no idea what the scholarship is behind the research because none is provided by the site. ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I'm still trying to understand why descriptions of the 16 types provided by Random Knowledgeable Joe might be appropriate for Wikipedia, whereas an illustration of the 16 types in the form of famous exemplars provided by Random Knowledgeable Joe are inappropriate. I added a Personality Page link at the same time as I added a Celebrity Types link, and you allowed the former. Why is it that you distinguish between the two, actively removing one but not the other? Possesseva (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The Personality Page link is arguably spam. The Celebrity Types link is definitely spam. Personality Page claims that their information is backed by scientific research (as opposed to personal knowledge). Celebrity Types can't make that claim unless they've actually administered the MBTI to the people whose types it names. (Otherwise, it's speculation, and therefore unencyclopedic.) If you adamantly believe that the Personality Page links are spam, then by all means, be bold and delete the links from all sixteen type articles. But there's a very good chance that someone else will add them back in. Experienced Wikipedia editors learn to be judicious. If something is questionable, they'll often allow it, because articles are built on consensus. There are some battles you can't win. With an ambiguous site like Personality Page, in my opinion, it's just not worth the fight. ThreeOfCups (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight in your thought process and my compliments on your patience with this would-be link-spammer! Possesseva (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)