My signature's been discussed and pared down already over here , and I am using subscript and superscript to place parts of the signature above the others. The signature is within guidelines (As I understand them) however I welcome any comments about my signature as well. Thanks
(Replied here rather than on my talk, to keep discussion in one place)
Your sig uses a fixed size for the font, which may be bigger than the size of text use by the reader, so the first step is to get rid of the fixed size. (It's a lot bigger the rest of the text on my setup, and specifying abolsolute font sizes is bad practice for screen display)
If you are going to use superscript, then make the text smaller and lose the shadow effect, because it increases the height.
There are several examples of complaint signatures at the ANI discussion. Please use one of them, or a minimal variation thereof.
Also, it's a nuisance for other editors that your sig does not display your username, because the text seen on screen does not match the username seen in the revision history. Please consider displaying your username. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your sig on this pageYour sig at CFDHere's what your sig looks like on my setup: highly intrusive. Please just make your sig simpler. Its purpose is to identify you, not to place a big piece of art on talk pages. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made it comply with the guidelines - that doesn't mean I personally don't find it a little annoying. I think you should include your name and get rid of the shadowing (though the latter isn't a problem for me because I block shadow effects in my .css). The comments by BHG about the hard-coded sizes are also relevant. And why do you put it on a newline? –xenotalk21:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Include the name, lose the shadow effect and the fixed font size, and get rid of the verbose text ("Aeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris" is much longer than "talk" and less informative). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. I had a hard time figuring out who "KoshVorlon" was in these comments, and that's just obfuscation. I'd also point out that the text "Aeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris" makes even less sense as it doesn't seem to be a link to the talk page (or to anything else, for that matter). Mark Shaw (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for uploading File:Aeria.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
"Myth" is a technical/scholarly word that fits in this context. It's also the title of the article, so it's definitely proper to use the article title in the article itself in the first sentence. Your concern is valid, however. There is actually a debate about this exact issue on Talk:Genesis creation myth, so its resolution will determine whether the terminology will be changed--feel free to contribute there. In the mean time, it's not appropriate to unilaterally change it during that discussion. DMacks (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As above, that is the articles title. Calling it something else in the lead does not change the articles titles. If you believe the articles title should be changed, you can discuss that at the talkpage, but altering the lead to fit your idea of what the title should be, whilst the title is something else, is not productive. Weakopedia (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to your message at my talkpage. You might also want to take a look at the discussion about this that took place over at Jim Wales' talkpage [1]. Weakopedia (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A minor point about this debate, with regard to your edit summaries- WP:NPOV IS a pillar, but those pillars stand by general consensus. If consensus holds that they should change, they can. --King Öomie17:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oomie, not to disagree, but look at WP:NPOV. It actually states that NPOV cannot be changed by consensus:
"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, along with "Verifiability" and "No original research." Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.'
I took that to mean that even if 100% of editors at an article decide "We don't need to abide by NPOV", they still have to. The current text of WP:NPOV was decided by consensus, and it can change. It just won't be removed. The issue of whether "myth" is NPOV as a term is not clear-cut, and frankly comes down to opinion. There's more than one definition of the word. This debate is much longer than your tenure here. --King Öomie 19:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC
The article-name is the trouble in your (and many others') view then. The first sentence just states what the title is, and other links to the article similarly go with that. However, others do not think it is POV. It's your (and perhaps Jimbo's and others') opinion that this wording is hopelessly/inappropriately biased (and others have scholarly research and other sources supporting that it is the correct word in this context), and the ongoing discussion is aimed at resolving that issue. NPOV is policy, but there's no "...and it must be fixed immediately at all costs" component, especially for cases that are not clear-cut non-disputed, no urgency that supercedes normal dispute resolution, etc. Again, feel free to join in that process in the appropriate article talk-page forum. DMacks (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, when you put the template in, you accidentally removed one of the opening brackets from the image call. Anyway, no harm, no foul -- just thought I'd let you know. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Photo mentioned on AN
The photo of the painting would probably be acceptable as a non-free fair use image on an article about the artist himself. It would almost certainly not be acceptable in an article on someone else. It is definitely not a free-use image for the reasons I stated at AN. Mjroots (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
NLT is policy. I have been blocked for enforcing the policy, further the admin is involved and should not have issued the block to begin with. I will appeal only once and not abuse this page with repeat requests. KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris13:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Yes, WP:NLT is a key and important policy. It applies to users, and never to articles (unless you're removing something from an article that also implies a legal threat). AFD'ing an article based on a user-based NLT is inappropriate, as you have already been notified. Be happy with 24hrs, as this type of misreading of policy and disruption usually incurs longer rests. (talk→BWilkins←track) 13:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
What were you thinking of?! Do you not think that you should at least have consulted people about your alleged interpretation of WP:NLTfirst? I seriously don't think you're likely to be unblocked! ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 13:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
