Wikipedia talk:Signatures/Archive 5

message: Shubha21 18:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

message: I've changed the wording on internal links to read:
: Although it is always better to put information on your userpage rather than your signature, including brief additional internal links is generally tolerated when used to facilitate communication, or to provide general information, but undesirable if seen as canvassing for some purpose.
We should not be encouraging editors to use their signatures as miniature user pages, because this seriously degrades the editing environment for participants on discussion pages, so I'm emphasizing the fact that the user page can hold links without causing this clutter. --Tony Sidaway 06:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal links 

message: I have read this whole page, and I have no idea why people are mad about signatures. Please inform me on what you people mean? 24.45.77.197 21:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently some users are tempted to customize their signature to the point where it makes a page almost unreadable; this page is designed to help keep such tendencies in check. (How far is too far is a matter for debate.) --ais523 11:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused 

message: There is a centralized discussion in WT:U#Proposal regarding non-Latin usernames. This discussion on the policy page may affect the content of this guideline too. You are welcome to participate. NikoSilver 09:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes 

message: One of the main problems with eye-catching signatures, is the counterpoint to the statement that people "can find their comments easily on a crowded talk page".
They obscure or overwhelm a thread visually, much like gratuitous text-formatting does. They make it harder to pick out the signal (any relevant links), when scanning down a crowded talkpage.
They also make it harder to pick out default-style-signatures, from the mess of bright-custom-signatures. 
They're like the WikiProject Stargate banner (see Talk:Stargate) that refuses to adopt the standard color scheme, and thereby screws up the intended-simplicity of the talkpage-banner-system's consistent style.
They're lacking in empathy.
Instead, I'd suggest using Javascipt to highlight your own sig, privately. 
:(just add that code to your monobook.js page, and replace the 2 instances of "ais523" with your own username. Change the default red background (backgroundColor="#FF0000") to whatever you desire.)
And then be as creative as you desire within your own userpages. --Quiddity 19:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you don't even need to change ais523 to your own username; the code mentioning ais523 is there to prevent a bad conflict between that script and one of my other scripts; it uses the username of the logged-in user to determine what to highlight. (If you don't use my edit counter, it doesn't matter whether you change that script or not.) --ais523 16:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The problem(s) with bold signatures 

message: When talking to or about a user on a talk page, is it appropriate for another user to copy there sig (Hello, New England (C) (H) I disagree with your reversion of my edit...)  New England (C) (H) 00:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, why not? Whenever I'm talking with somebody, rather than writing out their entire name, I typically just copy and paste it from the post above. I usually try to avoid the formatting (color, font, etc), but there is nothing inappropriate about copying somebody's signature in this way. - auburnpilot talk 04:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I've seen it more recently than usual and wondering if there were rules about it.  New England (C) (H) 08:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it might be confusing to do that, as the styled "signature" is only expected to appear when the actual user enters ~~~~. Probably harmless, but I would recommend against it. --Quiddity 05:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...perhaps, but either way it gets the job done, so it's really your preference.brickdude 06:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I would like to get a consensus about adding language to this section something like this:
Another purpose of the four-tilde signature is to help maintain verifiable records of contributions and deletions.  Although a user may manually type in a name as their identity, if they are contributing from multiple IP addresses, the history of their contributions will be scattered among those IP addresses.  When disputes arise, it is important to be able to check all of the IP addresses used, not just one or two which may have only fragmentary records of what that user has done.It is highly preferable that an editor always log in under the same name, and use the four-tilde signature which will automatically record that name.  However, even editors who do not formally log in should provide a four-tilde signature, whether they manually type in a name or not.  This isn't just a sockpuppet issue.  Some people may, in good faith, make contribs without logging on in their main user name, expecting that if they type in their name manually, all is well.  However, if they came in from a dynamic (or new static) IP without logging in, a mediator or arbitrator trying to check the record of who-did-what will look in vain on the contribs page for the name which was manually typed in.  Whatever happened won't be there; it will be on the contribs page of the anon IP number.  I realize the draft language in the box is awkward and welcome better phrasing. -- Lisasmall 04:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus:  Purpose of signature section 

message: When I first joined Wikipedia, I had had a rather silly problem - I didn't know where ~ is on my keyboard... It's alt+1. Martin 12:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...or Shift+1 J-stan TalkContribs 19:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: On my current keyboard (United States English) it's Shift-` (the key to the immediate left of the 1.)  I suspect that it migrates around rather a lot depending on your jurisdiction. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On a UK keyboard, shift-# is probably the most likely thing to press to produce a ~. --ais523 10:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "~" on the keyboards 

message: I suggest we add something to say that even on the talk pages it is unnecessary to "sign" a template, say for example, .  The history provides sufficient record if someone wants to know who tagged it.  Rarely will a project's tag be controversial, and if it is it should be discussed below.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's necessary, since those are banners, not comments. One only needs to sign comments. -- Ned Scott 07:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  templates 

message: SineBot's adding additional dates to my talk page edits because I'm not using the fully written out date with "UTC" (sic), but using the ISO 8601/RFC 3339 format instead. Slakr seems to demand that everyone use ~~~~, or opt out for the bot - and I'm not planning on opting out for every bot that comes out (opt in, sure). Is using the ~~~~ format a requirement, because this guideline doesn't seem to say so? HagermanBot worked fine. -- Jeandré, 2007-09-20t11:53z  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 11:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definitely easier if everyone uses the standard format. It's easier for users to recognise and understand the standard timestamp format, and also makes it possible for bots (that auto-archive pages, for example) to recognise dates. Using the standard, or opting out (and thereby potentially causing problems) are your only options, afaik. --Quiddity 18:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date format. 

message: I am still so confused about how to change your signature. I have seen many who have even changed the font. There should be a more detailed link on the page for users who are in the dark (since it is in 'a nutshell').
Shokwaav 15:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's Wikipedia:How to fix your signature; is that what you're looking for? --ais523 10:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wait... so how do you change the colour? 

message: Shroopliss and Random832 would seem to be the only signatures on this page that have used the signature icon on the toolbar option without editing.  Many have probably used it but seen the need to modify it as I shall.</br>
I quote from "How to sign your posts":</br>
2. If you are using the edit toolbar option (it appears above the edit screen as a default), click the signature icon to add the four tildes.</br>
OK - so I usually choose this way of signing instead of inserting four tildes and, as you know, the signature icon introduces two dashes.</br>
Recently it caused a problem as I refered to a hyperlink page on German wikipedia at the end of my discussion post, (could have been any http: web address), and the highlighted link incorporated the two dashes (at one point playing in my sandbox I managed to incorporate even part of my signature in the hyperlink the same way). If the signature icon were to incorporate a space before the two dashes (is everybody on this edit page, except the named duo, putting it in themselves before they use the signature icon?) the space would both set off the signature better and avoid this problem. Please compare http://wikipedia.orgUser:Brenont 19:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signature icon should incorporate a space 

message: I see we consider those stupid "SIGN" links disruptive, good I hate them. Question, there is a particular user, who I actually like and does decent work, but his sig has been annoying me for months, a few people have commented to him about it and he has pretty much brushed that off. Is there anyway we can get the disruptive internal links removed from User:TonyTheTiger's sig? Any help would be appreciated. IvoShandor 14:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Essentially, I just don't think that the first impression we want to give new Wikipedians, or readers is that some of our most prolific contributors are hopelessly bitter about not being able to call themselves "directors". This is why I, and I suspect others, have found this particular sig disruptive. IvoShandor 14:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have been asked about my sig for three reasons.  1.) People think it is too long.  I shortened it to keep it within a 2-3 line range. Then when the 256 character limit went into effect, I clipped it a little more. 2.) some people don't like the joke (or as IVO describes it bitterness although I prefer joke), but many persons make jokes in their sig. 3.) people think there may be some confusion with Tony The Tiger.  I seem to have convinced people that since I am a well-known martial artist who uses "Tony The Tiger" as a stage name, since the Tiger is a sacred animal to martial artists, since my name is Tony and I went to Junior High School, Senior High School and College at schools with Tiger as a mascot,  and since I went to business school at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan, which is located just over an hour away from Tony the Tiger's home in Battle Creek, Michigan, I could go on using TonyTheTiger.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  15:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your TonyTheTiger name, and I don't even want to delete the page you have linked, I am just asking that you remove the link to your "joke" from it, that's all. I don't think a lot of people would see it as a joke, while it is kind of cryptic (more riddlish), it isn't really funny, like jokes are. It seems to express some resentment, why isit linked in your sig? IvoShandor 15:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, we will see what others think, if no one else has a problem with it I will begrudgingly let it go, and try to simply overlook it. IvoShandor 15:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Announcing my new signature:--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD)  21:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sigs and disruptiveness 

message: Under  WP:SIG#Internal_links, it says "Do not place any disruptive internal links, such as <super>SIGN HERE!!!</super>, which refers to an autograph page." - I have seen several users with such links in the sig. I'm reluctant to point them to this paragraph, so my question is: Shouldn't that sentence either be deleted or enforced? —AldeBaer 03:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just politely ask them to remove the links.  If they're reasonable people they'll do so.  If they refuse, you'll have learned something useful about their character. --Tony Sidaway 03:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good advice. Thank you and will do! —AldeBaer 08:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hi! well, not the most recent discussion, but I just encountered it. I think this is a misunderstanding by AldeBaer as the policy guideline doesn't intend to cover the usage of sign pages but just trying to point out that so. should take care about their raw signature to get them properly done. The attention should be on the missing "]" (at least I do hope so as I'm using a stupid sign here! markup too..). HTurtle (talk2me • sign) 10:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The intent is to get users to place links like this on their userpage instead, where they belong, instead of cluttering up article talkpages with superfluous code and unnecessary messages. I'd recommend that you remove the "sign" from your sig. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm, I see - it's hard to tell what's really meant. once I read it a second time I now deduce it's more about the upper case and the (repeated) use of exclamation marks where the lacking "]" is just a sort of mistake on the article's page.<kiddie mode> can I make sth. up as I don't link to my main userspace..? - WP:NOOB; oh, and some are using a contrib. link too (I know, don't do just what all the others do..) </kiddie mode>. what I want to point out: it's all relative..however, I think with the advent of the char-cut it has became quite difficult to show up with an entirely inappropriate signature. HTurtle (talk2me • sign) 20:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sign here!