User talk:Threewords,eightletters...

Welcome!

 * Just FYI, I do not believe that the WP:Reference desk is the appropriate place to raise questions of a subjective nature as you did recently. Perhaps try Yahoo Answers or similar services. Note also that you were recently blocked, and unblocked, for an apparent misinterpretation of this situation. Please do accept my apology for any inconvenience this may have caused. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions. –xenotalk 21:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock, no harm done; I hadn't even realised I'd been blocked. My apologies also on any inconvenience caused and it is duely noted that Wikipedia is inappropriate for subjective questions. Should I have any more I shall look to other websites such as Yahoo Answers as you mentioned.

I read through the reasons for blocking or unblocking and it all seemed perfectly rational. Maybe I'm just good at making bad impressions - I was mentioning something in my past that I regretted doing but seemed useful to mention in response to the question posed. I can assure you, though, that I intentially try to keep within the law and those general social boundaries that seem all too easy to inadvertently cross, and hence the question on whether I could befriend someone was asked. And I am not particularly mentally unstable, I just find it hard to read the unwritten rules. I see from the discussion of my blocking the general consensus on the morality is that it would be immoral - also duely noted.

Once again thanks. Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Psycological Profile.pdf
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as File:Psycological Profile.pdf, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Dr Dec (Talk)  21:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info, I've added the template and my reason for not deleting. Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back!
Very glad to see you've been unblocked. I hope this little incident won't discourage you from sticking around :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.145 (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh btw, don't worry about Psycological Profile.pdf, the speedy deletion request was declined so it's not going to be deleted :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.145 (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't even realise I had even been blocked - by the time I tried to log in I was already unblocked. The commendable efficiency of Wikipedains! And thanks for the info on the speedy delletion thing. It was confusing as it didn't seem to have the speedy deletion template on it but I was told it could be deleted!? Confusing. Thanks for clearing that up. Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw that on multiple discussions you've stuck up for what I said, as I merely told the truth on regretted past actions in response to a question posed, thank you very much for that. Those who said I could turn violent clearly didn't actually read what I had written, and I was posing the question in the aim of keeping within the legal and social boundaries. So, once again, thank you. Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well-meant advice....
Re: your flowchart--please consider whether this is the "first impression" you want to convey here. Here's my thinking: Often, when an editor disagrees with something you've posted, the first place they go is to your user page--regrettably, it's often to see if you and they are actually on "the same side" or whether you have opposing views, as many times editors will treat a problem differently based on the "which side are you on" issue. What you currently have on your user page is pretty much an open invitation for the other party in any disagreement to dismiss you based on your self-admitted psychological profile. Now, while no one is trying to marginalize editors with possible psych issues (they'd better not be, as I answer to at least two of the descriptors on your flowchart myself!!) there's such a thing as "too much info" and you're honestly pretty close to crossing that line, if not actually across it. It's always best to make your good impression first, and share details later (and frankly, it also can cause ppl to think more highly of you--"wow, she's SUCH a good editor! I never would have thought....") But the important part of that equation is the good first impression. I'm certainly not saying "TAKE IT DOWN" in my Booming Admin Voice--I'm just suggesting that you think about the possible scenarios where that info might crop up and be used against you. Just sayin'...GJC 22:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for the advice, I was thinking of taking it down myself, and that has been perfect for me to tip the balance. I see how this in itsself could do me a disservice on Wikipedia in the future, particularly since through my writing I am equally bad at making first impressions. I agree I've probably crossed the line for giviing too much info... ugh, these invisible lines we've got to keep within! I shall change it to a more first-impression friendly userpage. Once agian, thanks for the useful advice. Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Psycological Profile.pdf listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Psycological Profile.pdf, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 23:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the info, I shall look at it. Some of these wikipedians are annoying; it was listed forr deletion less than two hours ago! They came to a judgement and now it's back up!? I see it is much more contravercial than intended. Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm the one who listed it for deletion. This is actually something different than what happened last time; Wikipedia's deletion policy is somewhat complicated, but basically there are three different types of deletion, two of which you have seen here. Your image was first tagged for speedy deletion, which is a way to delete things in a hurry when they're so obviously bad that there's no need for discussion (for example, if someone creates a new article that just says "apighapogihapo4we8hgapeorh", then it can obviously be deleted). This time, it's tagged for a deletion discussion: a way for editors to discuss whether or not the file should be deleted. After 7 days, an administrator will read the discussion and act on whatever the consensus was. So, basically, deletion discussions are for pages and files that are not so bad that they can be speedily deleted, but that might still not meet Wikipedia guidelines. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 23:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I see. Um, well I've been advised that it portrays me in a poor light anyway and so it may be best not to associate myself with such content - particularly when making first impressions, so I don't mind if it is deleted, but I fail to agree that it is against any rule or guideline for the same reasons I gave last time, though, admittedly, I am far from an expert in Wikipedia's rules.
 * This makes me look like a trouble maker - breaking all these rules. :( Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, If there's no discussion with the speedy deletion, why was it chosen to not be speedily deleted? My reasons were given after it was nominated and then unnominated. Surely someone must discuss something somewhere for there to be a rational decision made!? Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason it wasn't speedily deleted is given in the admin's edit summary (here): the admin didn't believe the page met the criteria for speedy deletion, and thus shouldn't have been tagged. That's how speedy deletion usually works, there are two levels: first a user tags the page, then an admin reviews it and decides whether or not it's appropriate to delete. The reason there's no need for discussion is because only pages that meet a very narrow set of criteria can be speedily deleted; other pages (such as this one) have to be discussed. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 23:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks.
 * Though, hoax? I'm already starting to dislike people. We're allowed to upload stuff for own userpages!
 * All of this is much too annoying. Please, please, please delete it soon and don't hassle me about it. I don't care!! This Wikipedia lark is much more hassle than it's worth. Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No one ever said it's a hoax. Xeno specifically said it's not a hoax. The user who placed the tag was wrong to do so, like Xeno said; incorrect tagging happens relatively often and that's why admins like Xeno and I have to review speedy deletion tags and decline the requests sometimes, like Xeno did here. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 23:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Dr Dec said it was one, I have no idea why!? He put the template up saying it is a "blatant and obvious hoax." Really, though, I don't mind; it doesn't make a difference. It's too much effort to fight for something that I don't care about. It's also no longer in use onmy userpage so it doesn't matter in the slightest. Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the user who placed it there I'm not a fan of, not Xeno. Xeno had been nice and helpful all day. Hmm, I say Dr Dec's tagging it was a hoax! lol. Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

 Thanks for deleting it  Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there are always going to be users who are wrong about things or users who disagree with one another; just like the real world, Wikipedia is not perfect and neither are the people on it. If you want to edit Wikipedia, you need to be able to take things like that in good stride and not get upset over them. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 23:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully after all this, things will go better here for you. Sorry that your introduction to the Wikipedia project has been met with so much animosity and harassment. Tarc (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, sometimes I guess I'm just not clear enough in explaining what I mean. Thanks for all the help and support, it's much appreciated. Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hypothetical
This may well be inappropriate, but; have you ever considered creating a new persona just to see how other people react to it? Stanstaple (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it's not inappropriate. Sorry, I don't quite undersatnd, make a new Wikipedia account and see what people say on my actions on that? Is that what you mean? I did think of abandoning this account and starting afresh, but I chose not to because then that'd just work in the favour of those that claim, falsely, that this is an SPA. Seeing as people stuck up for my actions, I want to prove to them that thier efforts weren't a waste. Though, my edids probably aren't going to be mojor.
 * If I started a new account there'd be no reaction as long as I try to not ask subjective questions that could involved anything to do with my psyche. I did used to have another account, but I use this one now as that used my real name. I was stupid and young when I created that account and now I regret it. Although all my edits were good on there and I contributed significantly to Wikipedia, I don't like that anyone who googles my name can find practically all that interests me from my contributions.
 * Now, also, I can say anything without it affecting my off-Wiki life. For example, the question I gave on the RefDesk I could have never put up there if it weren't anonymous, for people knowing my weaknesses could destroy me. In the same way that some of what I said was misinterperated, if a future employer or some such were to do the same that could be severely detremental to me.
 * Anyway, I hope that answers your question, if it doesn't I'm happy to further attempt to answer it.
 * Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about the past, it is forgotten quickly :). The best thing you can do is just ignore the people at the Reference Desk and work on editing some articles--that will show that you're serious about editing the encyclopedia, and if the people at RD keep on arguing about this they'll just look like drama-mongers.
 * As for your old account...did you know that, if you want, you can more or less get rid of that account--for more information, see WP:Right to vanish, basically it just involves changing the name of that account to some scramble of letters like ATaro0iug, and deleting your userpage so that there's no personal information left. (If you have already done all that, you can ignore this message.) r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 00:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh my gosh, thank you so much for the info on Right to Vanish, I didn't know such right existed. That's going to be useful... I shall do that soon. :D Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. For changing the username, you can file a request at WP:CHU. For deleting the old userpage, I can do that for you if you let me know what the username was; I can't handle the username change because only crats can do that (I'm just a WikiJanitor). r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 01:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The deleting the userpage is fine - there was nothing on it.
 * Just an admin‽‽‽ What you are is everything I aspired to be a few years ago; my plan was to climb the ranks, admin was a stepping stone but still a very hard target. I never made it. :( It was entertaining to try though, and I created a few pages in the process. :) Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello There!
Hi there.. I don't often come to the Ref Desk, but I did today, and found your discussion at the top of the page. Needless to say, I noticed that many of them thought that you needed help or whatever, so I just thought I'd say a word or two of my own... I've experienced "obsessive love" too, and more than once, I'd had the urge to stalk that person I had fallen for. This in itself is perfectly normal, whatever other people might say. So please don't go thinking that you're some kind of a weirdo, or that you need therapy. I'm just a kid, but it doesn't take an adult to be a human being right? My advice is: just follow your heart, and do what it tells you to. You can't go wrong. But keep your actions from becoming anything close to creepy (like pretending that your stalking may be "beneficial" to that person because of your "guardian-angel-like" presence. All the best!!  La   Al qu im  is ta  12:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and by the way, I notice your username... That's "I love you", right?? :) La  Al qu im  is ta  12:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, Alquimista. The urge to stalk someone we're really into is probably near-universal (that's part of what infatuation is!). Whether we act on it is what separates the (wo)men from the beasts! (Although acting on it just a little, like going a bit out of way to walk past the library just in case you bump into her coming out of it, is probably not a big deal...god knows I've done it.) <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 13:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)