User:Equazcion/Don't use the default signature

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Consider using a signature other than the default. Below we compare the benefits of using a custom signature versus the benefits of using the default.

Benefits of creating a custom signature[edit]

  1. Some of the editors you respect already do this.
  2. It'll be easier for most human users to identify your comments.
  3. It won't give your comments extra weight in discussions.
  4. Your signature won't be boring.
  5. They're fun and challenging to create.

Benefits of using the default signature[edit]

  1. Some of the editors you respect already do this.
  2. It'll be easier for bots to identify your comments.
  3. It won't invite intellectually dishonest complaints from pompous editors about your comments garnering extra weight in discussions, or other such silly superficial assumptions.
  4. More assurance of consistent presentation across devices and web browsers.
  5. You get to make veiled allusions to your more professional nature and honorable goals as compared to others, even if you're actually just being a bleak superior joyless asshole who had your creativity ridiculed one too many times in your childhood.
  6. Smaller amount of code in the edit window.
  7. Accessibility is more assured if you refrain from using colors other than black against our default white background.


This essay is primarily intended to be a humorous response to Wikipedia:Use the default signature, though it states some honest opinions.

Although custom signatures can be good, they can also very easily be bad. A good custom signature will be a pleasing and tasteful visual queue to human users that helps them identify your comments and portrays your individuality, without being ostentatious, annoying, or adversely affecting the surrounding text. It should also display accurately across most devices (except for IE, where even plain text doesn't display correctly).

See also[edit]