User talk:42.book.addict

Just replying to your message (also dw no big deal for bothering me) You click on your username and there should be an edit box. --1234231587678 (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

it says that i dont have permission to create the page…

There is currently no text in this page. You can search for this page title in other pages, or search the related logs, but you do not have permission to create this page. it says 42.book.addict (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you might have to wait some time (like a timer) until you can edit your own page... I think I only got to edit my page after 1 month of creating my account.--1234231587678 (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

ok, thx 42.book.addict (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

My guess on where you live is somewhere in the GMT zone, so United Kingdom.--1234231587678 (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

nope, im a california girl :)

lol you never know with utc times --1234231587678 (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be taking to heart the punctuation-before-the-Citation-needed standard (which is good, only sometimes it's even more complicated^{[citation needed]}),^{[citation needed]} but I see you recased an example of {{citation needed}} to {{Citation Needed}}, earlier. Now, it doesn't really matter because there are templates for "citation needed" and "Citation Needed". And also "cn" plus "fact" for the really lazy editors. ;) Anyway, all of these (maybe more, I'd have to check) redirect to the main "Citation needed" one. (Reflected in {{Actual citation needed}}, where "actual citation needed" plus "acn" redirect there, although {{Actual Citation Needed}} - "for completeness" - is actually a 'copy' template in its own right.) I wouldn't bother only changing various CN variations to "Citation needed"s (there is also a {{Citation neededs}}, but that's a struckthrough version of "Citation needed" rather than an ungrammatical "Citations needed"!), but if you're already editing anything else, it would not at all hurt to get everything to capital-C small-n version. It gives the server very very slightly less work to do. ;) Probably. Not that it matters. But, as you seem to be a 'details person', I thought I'd pass on a detail you may not have already known... :p 172.69.195.156 02:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

You have not read the above (properly, at least). The {{Citation needed}} is the 'proper' one (for xkcd version of 'proper'), whilst {{cn}} is a lazy version that redirects. There's no reason at all to change "Citation needed" to "cn". (Not much reason to change the other way, either, but could be justified if one is editing something else..)

I reverted the one where you made the "SIGHTation needed" into a CN, as that was clearly a deliberate variation by some past wag. No point changing it to the (not-quite-)standard one. 172.69.194.115 17:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I’m so sorry. I didn’t read your message until now. I’ll start using “Citation needed” instead of cn. Thanks for the heads up! 42.book.addict (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

And if you expect me to reply to you immediately, sorry! I’m at school right now, and it’s completely impractical to be listening to a lecture and editing ExplainXKCD at the same time. 42.book.addict (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

No worries. I was busy myself, and already a bit slow to jump in and let you know, just knowing you'd probably see the above better/sooner than a revert-edit summary. ;)

Functionally, all identical. Just the practical need for it was balanced the other way. Can't fault you for identifying the need to shift the punctuation. (I may do that in passing, with some other edit in mind... had to specifically redo it on the reverted SIGHTation article, i.e. on the true Citation one that was wrong, because I'd meant to keep that valid change but got distracted by a phone-call...)

Anyway, welcome to the community, I just hope you do more helpful things than troublesome ones. (Heck, I still hope *I* do that, even after a number of years. ;) 172.71.242.207 18:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

thanks! (btw, are you saying that my edits are troublesome?) 42.book.addict (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't. Just hoping that (through errors/misunderstandings) you still end up on the right side of trouble/not-trouble, on average. But just would like to point out that creating Jupitale's home page was not a good move. See my edited comment. I'm willing to believe you did it accidentally (visited their non-existing page, thus ended up creating it), and some mod or other may be along to clean it up at some point. Before or after that whole login is 'looked sternly at'. But shouldn't concern you if you're just being helpful and don't do too much of that. Anyway, enjoy your time here. (Not too much, obviously. Y'know, do your scholwork/don't vandalise wikis/all the other usual social necessities. :p ) 172.71.242.220 18:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

oh shit ok I didn’t realise that Jupidale’s was a vandal ill be more mindful 42.book.addict (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

My homepage is now fine thank you very much Jupitale (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, who the FUCK added a Soviet flag to my talk page? BTW, thanks to Asdf for reverting it. 42.book.addict (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It's one of the occasional vandalisers. Don't worry, we generally pick these things up.

As far as your noticing the fox-instead-of-pope vandalism, we also pick that up (I reverted it the previous two times). You'll work out how to use the Undo functionality, at some time, but maybe you'll want to also check the page histories to see what recent edits a page might have been through, note what has been done (for good or ill) and get some more idea of what happens and how we generally handle these things. All a learning process, of course! 172.71.178.55 20:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! 42.book.addict (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on the Soviet Union?

Hi! What do you think about the USSR? 108.162.245.37 00:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

oh, uh, it was oppressive, absolutely authoritarian, and cold. 42.book.addict (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

but, why, though? 42.book.addict (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

oh, and if i think that I’m going to listen to you anymore now that I’ve realised that you’re a troll, then you are mistaken 42.book.addict (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

btw please stop adding soviet flags everywhere. They’re disruptive, unnecessary, and you’re just being an asshole and douchebag 42.book.addict (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

btw I'm the crap spammer 172.71.147.80 00:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

that’s not really something to brag about… 42.book.addict (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you were here for the crap spam; it was quite extensive 172.71.147.79 00:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

even if I wasn’t here for the crap spam, i think that you are an motherfucker who doesnt have a life, needs to GET a life, and should really stop spamming and disrupting this wiki. Please go fuck yourself, jump off a bridge, and set yourself on fire if you still are defiant. 42.book.addict (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'll follow the wiki part of your advice, but not the bridge part. 172.71.147.79 00:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

THANK YOU! Also, i only said to jump off a bridge if you refuse to get a life 42.book.addict (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll look for ways to contribute constructively. 172.71.147.80 01:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

tbh this has been one of the less bad things I've done; the crapping was way worse 172.71.147.80 01:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

i have no idea why you’re still bragging about how you were so good at vandalising this wiki before42.book.addict (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

okay why are there so many colons on this thread premium chromium both Cote'di Ivore and Suriname look like potato wedges I will fill out by saying JACKSEPICYOUTUBECHANNELFULLOFFUNTIMESANDHIRICKX turdboiturdboiturdboi69420 -- Jupitale (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2024 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

New User and User Talk pages

You're trying to be helpful, but... Anyone who really wants them will probably ask (or wait until they have page-creation rights themself). Looking at all the ones you've made for people, how many have even then been used (by the user concerned)? I suggest you don't need to create them, not even to un-redlink someone's comic discussion .sig links. It's normally not a big concern, and there's enough people who can help out if someone actually asks for it when you're not paying attention.
As for the rest of us: ironically, I slightly wanted to drop a note to a long-term user the other day. (Comparatively, i.e. that they've been around for a bit longer than yourself.) They didn't have a User Talk page, so I resorted to a different way of commenting. They can create their own pages, if they want (and, if I was a username myself, I definitely could have by now). Yet I definitely wouldn't consider it valid to give the whole historic userbase any such 'missing' user-spaces.
I'm no authority on this matter, or even a 'real user' in any properly identifiable way, but please do consider my advice that comes from long but informal experience of this kind of matter. You're not the first eager new contributor to try to help out like this. And you're not the first to have made the odd error (giving a spam-only account a Welcoming page ...which thankfully never got used to further the spamming, the account seemingly abandoned by that point anyway), but of course this was probably before you even started lurking here (certainly before your current username, perhaps even prior to any IP-only-editing you might have done before that). Heck, some 'helpful' people even created the occasional User and/or User Talk spaces for IPs (don't do that, either, it's at best neutrally useless - even from my own IP-wise perspective).
You at least seem to be doing it from a genuinely helpful position. For that, I thank you, and maybe also some of those actual new users do (if they've notice. But maybe no more. Unasked for, at least? 172.71.242.29 16:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

postscript - even while I was writing this, it seems that one of the users who hadn't seemed to want to use their page actually went and did so. And, elsewhere, proclaimed they weren't vandalising any more. I leave it up to others to make judgements on what's happening there, and the timing with respect to other recent interactions, but still not being particular auspicious. Time will tell how this all turns out. Anyway, just to note this. 172.70.90.29 16:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC) (Same contributor as above, regardless of what the IP may have changed to.)

Will you please leave my user discussion alone? It's getting annoying Z1mp0st0rz (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

my comments have a right to exist. plus, i do have a valid point. 42.book.addict (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

As author of the other advice, I have to say I don't mind if Z1m reads it, learns it and deletes it. If it gets deleted again, don't worry about it. Although I've had to correct (or complete) Z1m's 'unsigned' edits several times since I passed on the (too?) thorough instructions, so not sure the learning bit has yet happened. And I happen to agree with you, 42, on the other issue.

I applaud good-faith edits of all kinds, but perhaps lurk more and learn more, Z1m, ok? Just for the time being. I don't want to pollute these pages with arguments, though, so I'll say no more. 172.70.90.48 22:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)