Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Signatures: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Docu (talk | contribs)
rv removal (changes context of initial comment)
→‎Guideline Review: OK; adding more meaningful section header
Line 98: Line 98:


::That comment was made after the change and besides, your quote doesn't give any explanation. -- [[User:Docu]]
::That comment was made after the change and besides, your quote doesn't give any explanation. -- [[User:Docu]]

===Docu's unlinked, undated signature ===
<small>subhead added by -- [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 13:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC) </small>

:::I have (re)refactored the original discussion, to split apart the two separate topics. This was initially a potentially productive thread about "guideline review", that I hope doesn't get derailed by a discussion about linkless signatures.
:::I have (re)refactored the original discussion, to split apart the two separate topics. This was initially a potentially productive thread about "guideline review", that I hope doesn't get derailed by a discussion about linkless signatures.
:::I'm happy to see you have added a link to yours; hopefully you will also add a timestamp, to help make threads easier to follow for all fellow-editors, and to aid archival bots that rely upon timestamps. Perhaps you could explain why you are so reticent to use them, despite all the requests? (I'm just trying to make Wikipedia better (clearer, more consistent); not to get into an argument) -- [[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] ([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]]) 04:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm happy to see you have added a link to yours; hopefully you will also add a timestamp, to help make threads easier to follow for all fellow-editors, and to aid archival bots that rely upon timestamps. Perhaps you could explain why you are so reticent to use them, despite all the requests? (I'm just trying to make Wikipedia better (clearer, more consistent); not to get into an argument) -- [[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] ([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]]) 04:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:46, 20 September 2008

This is not the page to ask for help with using Wikipedia or other random questions.

template usage

It states on the page that using a template for a signature is forbidden, with the main reason given as that it is subject to vandalism. If I have my signature template protected, so that no vandalism can occur on it, will it be permitted then? --fone4me 10:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the section carefully. There are more reasons given than the one you have chosen to supply, above.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The second point doesn't apply, since archiving will still archive my sig. --fone4me 10:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try the point where the system administrators said to worry about the performance drain. Anomie 01:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it makes sense that the signature text field has a fixed character limit. It's there for a reason :) Gary King (talk) 07:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand the point about archiving. Most archiving bots parse the sig to decide whether to archive the page. They don't recognise templates as signature so it will indeed be a problem. In what circumstances did you think the template thing is a problem? And what makes you think your use of templates is special Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose?

I'm afraid I don't see the point. When I was too ignorant to sign my post, the following text was appended: "—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jqavins (talk • contribs) 01:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)".

When I edited my post, adding ~~~~ at the end, this was changed to "Joe Avins (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)". So, it has my name instead of my username. If the statement that the comment was unsigned had not been present, there would be no difference of note at all! My username is as good as my name; who cares?

Okay, so it's considered good etiquette to sign each post. So I'll sign each post. But really, what's the point? Joe Avins (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "unsigned signature" thing is not an automatic feature, that was someone else comming along and adding the {{unsigned}} template at the end if your comment to help others figure out how said what. Granted there is at least one automated bot out there that is pretty good at catching and atributing unsigned comments on most talk pages, but it's not rely something you should be relying on, so just sign your own commetns. --Sherool (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also the bots are run by contributors. They can go down at any time, may start to misbehave and have to be blocked, can make mistakes and can miss things. You should not be relying on user bots to do something you should be doing yourself. From a editor POV, you're liable to annoy others and more likely to be ignored if you always don't sign your posts. You may not think that's fair, but from ther alternative POV, why should other people waste their time with people who can't follow basic etiquette. Nil Einne (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks bot for signing this :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.35.146 (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

I made wp:unsigned redirect to the Dealing with unsigned comments section, if that's okay. --WikiWes77 (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colour in signatures

This page says "if you must use color...". What about the advantage of using colour - that your signature is easier to pick out among others, so it is easier to follow who said what? Richard001 (talk) 08:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess it differentiates. Makes it a more "personal" signature. Not necessary. Vast majority of editors just leave their signature as the default. Enigma message 22:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too much colour is more likely to be distraction... Nil Einne (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline Review

In a recent WP:AN discussion it became clear that there are no real guidelines on acceptable (or unacceptable) signatures. There is also no defined process for dealing with an inappropriate signature. It has been suggested that WP:SIG contain language on proper signatures (probably similar to WP:USER NAME and include a resolution process for violations. At this point I would like to suggest we make a list of blatantly inappropriate signatures and see if we can use that list to write some guidelines. GtstrickyTalk or C 19:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It goes without saying that the restrictions in signatures should, by and large, match the restrictions on user names (with some additional thought given to format as well as content). Offensive signatures, blatantly promotional signatures, intentionally disruptive signatures - should be obvious picks. I believe these should be tackled first, and then thought can be given to issues that are more unique to signatures. Shereth 19:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that WP:IU section actually includes signature. So we have a policy that touches on signatures. However the next section in there that talks about dealing with the user name does not mention signatures. It seems we might make this easy by amending that section to include signatures. GtstrickyTalk or C 01:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was last brought up (afaik) in Jan 2007 - see Wikipedia talk:Signatures/Archive 3#Nice signatures, which eventually led to bugzilla:8458, which gave us the current 255 character limit.
There are a few galleries (see User:Athaenara/Gallery and more links at the bottom) of distracting signatures. Whether distracting is the same thing as disruptive, is apparently subjective!
Personally, I wish everyone used the default signature, and kept aesthetic-personalization to their userpages. However, I realize that I'm outnumbered by the colorfully-inclined... -- Quiddity (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if we made User:Ais523/highlightmyname2.js into a user-Gadget (with user-customizable color), we could solve two birds with one stone? -- Quiddity (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlinked signatures

subhead added and thread split/refactored by -- Quiddity (talk) at 04:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tangential example: I asked admin Docu just a few days ago, to include a link in his/her signature, but was gently rebuffed. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Refusing to provide a user- or user talk page link is a problem per the guideline, which reads: "It is common practice to include a link to your user page or user talk page (often both); the default signature links to the user page. At least one of those two pages must be linked from your signature, to allow other editors simple access to your talk page and contributions log." The lack of timestamp is also problematic (not on the user's talk page, necessarily, but on other talk pages). I've left the user a message asking him to modify his sig. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline review (2)

subhead added by User:Docu at 06:12, 2008 September 18 (UTC)

A somewhat recent change was made following a brief discussion: 1 noting problems like "The user's sig does not link to either their user or talk page and their actual user name is not reflected in the sig, instead there is only a nonexistent pseudonym" and 2 noting "both using a sig with non-standard form of their user name (or bearing no relation at all to their user id, indeed), and with no link, which would be a recipe for untold consternation.". I think this describes well problematic signatures and we should fine tune the current guideline accordingly. -- User:Docu

That "somewhat recent" (sic) change was made in July 2007 (your undated comment was posted on 10 September 2008); and your recent edit to provide an exclusion to it was quickly reverted. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a pointer, the 3rd link discussing linkless signatures is at Wikipedia talk:Signatures/Archive 6#No links in a signature. As admin John Reaves says there, "Not including a link is borderline disruption." -- Quiddity (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That comment was made after the change and besides, your quote doesn't give any explanation. -- User:Docu

Docu's unlinked, undated signature

subhead added by -- Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I have (re)refactored the original discussion, to split apart the two separate topics. This was initially a potentially productive thread about "guideline review", that I hope doesn't get derailed by a discussion about linkless signatures.
I'm happy to see you have added a link to yours; hopefully you will also add a timestamp, to help make threads easier to follow for all fellow-editors, and to aid archival bots that rely upon timestamps. Perhaps you could explain why you are so reticent to use them, despite all the requests? (I'm just trying to make Wikipedia better (clearer, more consistent); not to get into an argument) -- Quiddity (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My post was in regards to guideline review. If you like to discuss timestamps, you could open a new topic. Besides, would like to add anything in response to my question? -- User:Docu
None of your previous comments in this thread included a question mark. Which part was a question? I'll guess, and answer what I think you are talking about...
Yes, the comment was made after the change; I never claimed otherwise - I said it was a 3rd thread discussing linkless signatures, which it is.
The quote doesn't need any explanation. It is self-explanatory: If you have a signature without a link, you are (borderline) causing a purposeful disruption. (it is disruptive as explained to you in the threads linked below)
  1. Will you answer the 2 admins and 2 editors ([1] and [2]) who have asked you why you are reluctant to include a link to your user/talkpage, and why you still don't include a timestamp?
  2. Why you are being so defensive about this (even changing the guideline to get around it), instead of just explaining your position against links/timestamps??
If we understand your position, we might be able to sympathize or even help. Please! -- Quiddity (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the page, you can read that the quote from John Reaves is in response to somewhat complicated explanation given by Alex_Smotrov which hightlights problematic signatures without links: "some users also changed their nickname with every post (cause "hey, that's allowed as well")". Any of the above explanations highlight a clear problem, i.e. signatures unrelated to user names presented in a way that they don't allow to identify clearly the users. Do we agree on this point? -- User:Docu
Your use of a signature without a link to your user and/ or talk page, and without a date-time stamp, causes problems and extra work for me; and apparently clearly does so for other editors too. Do you dispute this point? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's the extra work you got? -- User:Docu
Why do you respond to questions with questions, and not answers? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I agree or I disagree with you if I don't bother explaining what extra work I caused you. (You did write above "Your use of a signature without a link .. causes .. extra work for me"). -- User:Docu
I've raised this issue here. Adambro (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Docu: I did indeed say that. Please assume that I do so in good faith; and address the problem. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be glad to address your problem. You would help us, if you'd explain the extra work you had. If you are not interested in guideline review, you should just leave me a note on my talk page (it's here BTW). -- User:Docu

Replacing IP with signature

This was reported in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-25/In the news. Do we want to add it here?

Occasionally, an editor will be logged out without recognizing it and post to a discussion, thus their IP shows as their signature. After the editor realizes this, they may log in and replace the signature. This may not be a good thing, as WikiScanner now trawls the database looking for these replacements and logs them at Poor Man's Checkuser. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 17:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how easy it would be to fool such a scanner, but I think it might be worth doing. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy?

I have reverted a change to this guideline page which put a policy banner at the top of the linking section. I can see that there is a wide agreement that people should link to their user or user talk pages in their signatures, and that it is a good practice. But what I'm not seeing - here or on AN/I - is an agreement that it should actually be considered a hard-and-fast policy of Wikipedia. What I instead see is several people on ANI going "meh" and questioning why something so minor needs to be dragged to ANI. Which in my opinion says "this is not an important enough issue to warrant strict enforcement along with Wikipedia's other policies". Discuss. - Mark 07:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that had the user in question been newer, i.e. not "grandfathered' in, people would have been more disapproving. John Reaves 07:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]