|
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)
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 {{
hangon}}
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)
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)
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)
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)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Psycological Profile.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Thank you. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 23:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
db-hoax}}
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.
rʨanaɢ
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)
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)
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)
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 Alquim ista 12:48, 9 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)
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 {{
hangon}}
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)
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)
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)
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)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Psycological Profile.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Thank you. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 23:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
db-hoax}}
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.
rʨanaɢ
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)
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)
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)
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 Alquim ista 12:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)