User talk:Firestar233

but nobody came

User and User Talk pages for IPs

There really is no point to creating these for IP users (such as myself, yes), as they are not a practical/viable a means to contact a specific anonymous contributor, nor a useful 'home-page' for them to use.

Now, '42' is maybe a bit keen to tidy up, and found that you seem to be active (or at least responded to a notification about the change to your Watched page, yes?), so rightfuly that should be reversed (the merits of tagging to delete other named users will depend upon the users themselves, there are occasional spam-only (or failed spam-only!) contributors that were given User-space pages by well-meaning others, who neither know nor care). But setting IP-specific pages to delete is entirely justified. If there are any significant contributions to these, they could probably be copied somewhere else first (pages of the most significant named contributor?), yet I generally doubt that'll be a realistic consideration, overall. 172.70.163.111 12:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

If the pages were blank, then I might agree. I'm mostly undecided on deleting the IP addresses' user and talk pages, but registered users probably shouldn't have their pages be deleted even if they are blank. guess who (if you desire conversing | what i have done) 21:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Some people, upon getting "page creation privileges" have tended to go around and "un-redtext" people's user-space pages (or even just make them for random users they've seen sign up that day - not realising that a vast majority of the new users are typically just attempts at auto-spamming that get stalled).

It's all a lot easier if the user concerned (the who gains the pages) hasn't made any actual editing, or whose only edits are discredited. Even if you delete them and it wasn't a totally abandoned (and never-used) account, just hadn't got around to doing anything for several years, it can be recreated as soon as the puzzled owner finds out. (Some users, recently coming into "page creation capability" have tended to try to de-RedText random contributors to article Talk pagesl; or even give recent new users their userspace-pages, despite most of those clearly being abortively created only for spamming purposes.)

I think there's a degree of consideration to take when there is some content. But what use does the content of a page such as this have? That'd be a decision I'd happily leave to the administrator who eventually decideds to look at the "please delete this page" tag. They can look at the contributors, what they contribute, decided whether to: a) actually delete it (and, if there's reason to, they can always 'undelete' it, but meanwhile it cleans up the openly visible site), or b) remove the tag themselves.

I don't think it's your job to remove "please delete" tagging from pages that you randomly find like that. If you know the user concerned, maybe. If you are the user yourself, especially. But all you're doing is leaving it in a state where someone can be equally certain that they should be tagged-to-delete (with exactly the same reasoning) and re-apply it. Mass-hot(un)catting doesn't make me think that you've even looked at the users (contributors, if any, whoever created the page in the first place, but also the 'owner', if they've ever been involved).

No, maybe it wasn't right '42' to mark your particular page, but... look at the actual history of pages like User:Danken. Created (probably) in error, marked for deletion when that was realised... Then you reverse that for what reason? (Not for the sake of the content.) Good intentions, yes, vs. an equal well-intent. And, personally, I'd side with (some of!) the things you untagged being more tag-worthy than not. Leaving it up to the admin(s) to work out as and when they get around to it. 162.158.74.118 22:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Whaaaaaaaaa

Omg you know warriors and undertale!? -- Definitely Bill Cipher (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2025 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Sandbox

Hey, what are you cooking up in your sandbox? The wikitext/code on your user page looks pretty interesting. 42.book.addict^{Talk to me!} 21:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Interested to know

What was the rationale behind switching wiki-italics with HTML-italics. I presume some context in which it was embedded, but it's not obvious where, and I'm genuinely curious. (Noting that i(talic)-tags are officially a style-only tag, with the equivalent em(phasis)-tags are now prefered where it's a semantic purpose, though identical under most circumstances and probably not worth changing.) 172.70.160.216 13:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)