User talk:42.book.addict

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search

introductions

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)

citation needed tips

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)

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.)

newline tips

Just a note from a perpetual observer about the newline thing.

Using one or more : (at the start of a line) gives indents. If you are already indenting, then a simple newline and : (or multiple ::s, the same numbed as you were on) handles the textflow properly and renders it as a linefeed, rather than 'merely' a simple whitespace that continues. I'm doing that here.
I can also use other markup, like the ; I used here...
...but that's not how that is meant to be used, and...
...only lines up with ";:", in this case...
...and not with ":;" in this other. ;)
Honestly, though, that's not what ; is to be used for. It's actually really more for ";Item:Definition of some kind", like:
Item
Definition of some kind
Though is often repurposed as ";Unofficial 'header' title", within Talk pages, that doesn't create a TOC entry. Just just so gou know. :p
If you're writing at the 'zero indent' level, then a double-linefeed in the wikisource forces a line-break in the HTML, but it looks messy in viewing/re-editing the markup, so one way to avoid that is to invoke the <br>, even in the middle of an actual wikisource line! (But that can be confusing, so don't do that without good reason.
I also prefer to use "<br/>" (it adheres to standard non-container extensible HTML tag notation better) and like to put it at the start of the new line text rather than at the end of the old one's (but this is practically the same – I just find that seeing <br/>s at the start of every intended new line is easier to visually check than having them at random column positions according to the paragraph length that precedes it, hence it's my preference only).
Another useful note is that when you're in a wikitable markup, the 'contents' of a cell can have linebreaks. Whether a line-started "|" or a successive midline "||" (trust me, when you're used to wikitabls markup, you'll know what I'm saying!), the very first newline in the wikisource is understood as a renderable newline (because it's not the "|"-at-start-of-line of the next column's cell, or the "|-" tween-line, otherwise expected), but you need to invoke any second, third, etc linebreaks with one or other of the br-tag/double-newline/etc methods. Otherwise it'll just be treated as whitespace and 'unwrap' into a continuous second-para. (As always, if in doubt use the Preview button, check it appears like you think it ought to.)
But there's loads of different ways to wikimarkup various conceptual layouts, and all kinds of different styles that you could adopt. This is just a "the more you know..!" infodump, which may or may not be useful to relatively new editors like yourselves. So take note or ignore, or ignore until you suddenly realise you might need to know these things, then try to make sense of it. Or maybe I'll be around to answer further questions! 172.70.86.11 20:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
trying to process the infodump right now-but thank you! I’ll slowly process it. 42.book.addict (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Goddamn preview button

I always forget about that God damn preview button too :( Apollo11 (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

hey, higher edit score tho! 42.book.addict (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
True.... Welp who needs the preview button anyway Apollo11 (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Oh boiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii The orange crewmate ඞ (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Depends what you wanted to do...

Is the following what you intended?


...or is even the [[]] part not what you want?

As brief a guide as I can manage:
  • URL links use []. Although literal https://www.google.com will self-link without any wikimarkup, you probably don't want it to look like that most of the time.
    • Just give the URL, as in [https://www.google.com], to get a [1] (i.e. a reference number), not the best way to do it. It can be organised better with a 'References' section, but we don't do that here (they do on wikipedia, but usually with other bits to it.
    • Better to give the URL and the text to use (after a space, a character that never appears raw in any proper URL). This can be [https://www.google.com Check It Out On Google!] or even [https://www.google.com https://www.microsoft.com (only kidding!)], to give Check It Out On Google! or https://www.microsoft.com (only kidding!)... But perhaps best not to do the latter too much (I really didn't want to post that without the "(only kidding!)" part, in fact.)
  • Internalised wikilinks use the [[]]s.
    • Anything that can be found under the title, e.g. "2: Petit Trees (sketch)" (or, because of redirections, "2" and "Petit Trees (sketch)" go to the same spot, so [[2]], [[Petit Trees (sketch)]] and [[2: Petit Trees (sketch)]] gives you the literal links 2, Petit Trees (sketch) and 2: Petit Trees (sketch)
    • Or use [[2: Petit Trees (sketch)|that comic with the little trees]], additional text separated by the 'pipe' symbol (i.e. "|"), to link to that comic with the little trees
    • You can also link across to articles on other 'wikimedia family' sites, but I'm not going to try to summarise that, as the primary reason to do that is to go to an actual Wikipedia article, and there's a template set up to do that very nicely, already (and also a few other places, like Wiktionary, and some not-really-wikis with a similar philosphy like TVTropes). If in doubt, do it as a URL link or find a place where someone else has clearly markuped a link to the same site as you want to link to.
  • So, anyway, Wikilink templates use the {{w}}-template, with one or two paramaters (pipe-separated). (It shortcuts the thing you'd maybe use [[]]s for
    • Using {{w|article}} gives you a link to "Article" (it capitalises the first character, even if you don't)
    • Using {{w|article|with alternate text}} gives you a link there but "with alternate text"
    • If the article name has whitespace (or other 'URL-unfriendly' characters) in it, those characters in the URL (which you wouldn't want to use) will be rendered as something URL-friendly. The URL for "Whitespace (programming language)", for example, is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitespace_(programming_language) but you wouldn't normally use that so literally in any case, and definitely not when you can significanty shorten it with the {{w}} notation.
    • Also, for the use of a link which is singular but which you would like to include as the plural (usually the "...s" or "...es" version), you could use article-name first parameter and pluralised article name as second, but instead of {{w|Plural|Plurals}}, for a link to the Plurals, you can save yourself a lot of effort by doing {{w|Plural}}s to also give you a linke to Plurals. Magic, eh? And it also works with {{w|Ox}}en to link the different standard plural of Oxen to the article for "Ox" (better than linking to the word for Oxen, which ends up redirecting to Ox anyway).

...so, anyway, that's the basics. And a few not-so-basics. So if the solutions to your tagging issue aren't already solved (or even if they are!), you might have enough info here to kludge it into whatever form of infobox info text you really wanted to use. Ok? Probably far too much info for you to absorb in one go, but covers loads of interesting possibilities. About the only thing you don't want to do is wikilink straight to the word "trans", at that'll be a disambiguation page. And there's also no way (or reason?) to use the terms "trans man"/"trans woman" as the pluralised "trans men"/"trans women" versions via the "directly add the plural suffix" thing, of course. :P Anyway, FYI. 162.158.38.217 20:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

oh my god thank you so much 42.book.addict (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on the Soviet Union?

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)

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 ~~~~)

Editing other people's talk pages

42.book.addict: Respectfully but firmly: If you don't like the way I manage my talk page, please feel free to leave me a message saying so. But it is grossly inappropriate for you take matters into your own hands and make a major reversion or mass edit to another person's talk page that is anything other than adding a message to them. If you don't like how I run my talk page, complain somewhere else, but get off my lawn. It sounds like you are grossly unfamiliar with MediaWiki etiquette. Go check how it works on Wikipedia (there are not a lot of great examples here). But until then, again: GET OFF MY LAWN and do not revert edits to my talk page. Thank you. JohnHawkinson (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

oh, so you say? 42.book.addict (talk) 04:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Screen Shot 2024-05-09 at 7.04.03 PM.png wikipedia talk page guidelines.png

if you really want to, archive it. or ask for permission to delete the comments from the original author. 42.book.addict (talk) 04:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah kinda argree

42.book.addict:You seem confused. Is this a "throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks" situation? Let's start with the Wikipedia Talk Page Guidelines that you cite in the second screenshot, because they are clear and unambiguous. First of all, "deletion" is not the same as clearing the page—not even close. And if you read the section, it is short, and its beginning pertinent and clear: "¶ The length of user talk pages, and the need for archiving, is left up to each editor's own discretion. ¶ Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. Users may also remove some content in archiving."

That is, I am fully authorized to exercise my own discretion on my own talk page. And as for archiving, this is a place where this wiki differs from enwiki. We don't have an active archiving culture, with archiving bots. Nor do we need it, because our volumes are so low. The history is not so difficult to pull out. But it matters not — I am free to clear out and blank my own talk page on the English wikipedia, and certainly here.

Moving on to your example from User talk:Netherin5, it is a different situation, and it is in tension with the clear WP:TPG guidelines quoted above. I'd go so far as to say the User:Dgbrt was wrong in their absolute statement "must never be blanked," but what was really going on was that Netherin5 had vandalism on their user page, Dgbrt left them a note on their talk page suggesting they blank it, and Netherin5 blanked the talk page not the user page, and Dgbrt advised Netherin5 that's not what Dgbrt meant. In context, I think Dgbrt's statement was fine, but it wasn't actually correct or proper. Needless to say, this matters not. Even if you and Dgbrt both disagree with me, and even if you were somehow right according to some arbitration process, you still don't get to go and make the changes to my talk page yourself. You get to ask, and if you don't like how I respond, you can raise it up to an administrator or something. But you aren't right. Users are entitled to clear their talk pages.

As for your late-added addition: no. I am not going to ask permission from some IP author (who cannot reasonably reached!) to remove their text from my talk page. Although they explicitly granted it in their message anyhow (unnecessarily!). Nor would I ask the named user who accidently posted on my own page in error. Not necessary to do either of those things. Because, again, it's my talk page and I will manage it as I see fit. If you would like to make suggestions, feel free, but don't take it into your own hands, that is inappropriate and wrong. Thank you. JohnHawkinson (talk) 04:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

For note, I'm that IP. (Unprovably so, I know; one of the very few disadvantages of remaining untied to a user handle all this time.) I judged my own contribution to be excessively superfluous (once the point I was making was made) and said so. Being just a conversation between me and the 'page owner', then I offered to let them delete it when it was observed. Whether or not that was wise or helpful... ;)
Once it starts involving more people, then it gets tricky, but generally I'd consider the User Talk 'owner' as having the final word over their own whole User Talk page (new editing rights to anyone, editing rights (within reason, typos/honest errors/etc) only to past contributions by such a contributor (i.e. no correcting others' mistakes) and major edits like reorganising (e.g. top-posting to bottom-/followon-posting, indenting, adjusting headers) or indeed discarding what is past its sell-by-date for whatever reason is justifiable (for malicious contributions, immediate squashing, including back-tracking any malicious and unfounded re-editing). (And, obviously IP User-Talks cannot really be 'claimed' or 'governed', so is potentially the worst of all worlds).
The simple (non-Talk) User page-spaces I would say have very few reasons to be edited by anyone other than the 'owner' (primarily, as a fall-back if there is a User page but no User Talk page to make a directed comment upon!) and the owner gets to decide everything (within moderatable/administrable limitations, naturally).
The (regular article) Talk pages have no owner to moderate them, so there's a few more rights by all the non-owners (logical rearrangements, adding in of missing signatures; importantly not correcting others' typos) although in the case of actual vandalism/etc (including undue editing of others' comments) then reversion/excising rights are there for the taking by whoever can deal with it.
Beyond that, it's free-for-all 'improve or modify as you see fit' (as long as it is without malice!) around much of the rest of the wiki (the major exceptions being Community Portal pages to follow the regular Talk page examples, naturally).
...anyway, to this loose 'ideal', and knowing that there's a(n almost) permanent record of historic changes, one can probably defer to the user for all bits of their User-spaces, but there are always going to be exceptions to this. And opportunities for a tussle. Now, John's got almost the same vintage here as myself (again, unprovably, but I've been semi-lurking/IP-posting here a lot) and I've seen 42 gradually develop from newbie into the eager and eager-to-learn fresh face as they are now - including helping inform an even more recent newbie, recently. ;)
Ultimately, it's community standards that are going to lead things. Developing concensus probably being more important than even other-Wikis' official standards, as I think there's room for flexibility of opinion. So long as there's no slide into either anarchy or totalitarianism. (And I'm not even sure I know which way round the two 'opposing' views here would represent, though then only if taken to their own particularly absurd extremes). Ideological disagreements are healthy, as long as they don't become outright arguments. 162.158.230.46 18:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
noted. 42.book.addict (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Z1M argument

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)
Fine, now please leave my user page alone, 42. Otherwise imma spam Uk flagsZ1mp0st0rz (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
spam my talk page with UK flags, and i will have you promptly banned. 42.book.addict (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
fine imma ask a admin to block us from each other so this doesn't happen again. happy?

Official Apology

From: Z1m

To: 42

Listen, I'm sorry for everything, 42. We all make mistakes sometimes, and I think the safest course of action so neither of us gets banned is to either leave each other alone or just say nice things to each other.
I'm aware it's the Internet, and what I said can't be taken back (unless I delete it).
But really, I'm sorry.
To change the subject though, I'm glad I found someone who (used to) read Artemis Fowl! Maybe we can trade favorite book titles sometime! :) The orange crewmate ඞ (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
P.S: Click on the signature

P.P.S: I say D'Arvit all the time lol

sort of ironic how someone who says that they like all xkcd comics “except for the ones with swearwords” and yet allegedly says d’arvit “all the time”

42.book.addict (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

42, Z1m just apologized, and thats how you respond? With some passive agresive bullshit. Really?? Apollo11 (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
I consider it different cuz its in gnommish. don't think it even has a meaning. The orange crewmate ඞ (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism!

Alright, 42, this has gone too far. It's my talk page and I have a right to choose what to keep and what to toss. I already apologized, and you replied with some passive-aggressive garbage. I have no regret saying the following:
YOU ARE OFFICIALLY BANNED FROM MY TALK PAGE.
I don't know why you're being a jerk at me, and I don't like it. So get off my talk page!
I also don't know if you should even say this sort of stuff. People have <str> FEELINGS. </str>
And you put in this screenshot of something I already know?
Being mean hurts people...
But I'm real good at being the bigger person.
I know what to do.
You
are
a
jerk.
Good riddance.
Signed, Z1m
PS: I didn't sign with ~~~~ so that you couldn't get into my talk page. So there >;)

instead of deleting it, just fucking toss it to the bottom. you can’t ban people from your talk page. you can give advice, but you can’t force people to follow your “rules”. your behaviour is going against what Wikipedia and ExplainXKCD stand for. 42.book.addict (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
oh, and acc, thx for teaching me how to separate lines of text. Actually. Thank you. No sarcasm. 42.book.addict (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi

Hello 42, I'm glad we made up. We clearly both have some things to work on, but at least we're putting our grudges behind us.
Yeah, I'm glad you learned how to separate sentences with <br> instead of : .
Anyway, how are you doing? What's it like in California?
Wanna trade favorite books sometime?
You don't have to look at this, just checking in after that truce.
Hope you have a good day :)
-Z1m

Favorite Stuff?

Since we made up, I thought we should get to know each other.
You can see what my favorite stuff is on my user page,
but I wanna know some of your interests.
Also yeah sorry again :) The orange crewmate ඞ (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)