Wikipedia talk:Sign your posts on talk pages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Welcome to the discussion


Shortcut:
WT:SIG

Archives:

Contents

[edit] Internal links (2)

Only linking to your talk doesn't reflect the actual practices, and there was no further discussion above, so I've removed it.
brenneman {L} 06:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The section as removed reads as follows:
Internal links
Use internal links sparingly.
You may include a link to your talk page for people who want to discuss something with you person-to-person. Beyond that, use internal links sparingly. If you find a particular Wikipedia page useful, put it in your browser bookmarks, favorites list, or on your userpage—not in your signature.
The vast majority of all signatures link only to either the user or user+talk. It is self-evident that other links are unnecessary (a signature isn't a userpage) and undesirable. They add clutter to discussion pages. --Tony Sidaway 10:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, anything other than a plain unpiped link is "unnecessary" but good luck getting that one past the goalie. Enough people use other links to make outlawing them by fiat a bad idea. Go convince a whole bucket-load of people then change the guideline. - brenneman 11:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The most popular "third-party" link I see is to Esperanza, and I don't think it's that common. But then I disagree that anything is too wide-spread to not suggest changes. I also disagree with the view that we're "outlawing them by fiat." It's a guideline, not a policy. And I don't think we're going to get bucket-loads of people here to discuss anything. I like this section, with one small caveat: the words "You may..." as I say, it's only a guideline. We could start that "You can..." or "Some like to..." and take the permissive edge off it. --InkSplotch 18:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


The section as you removed it says only "use internal links sparingly". I think there is a visible consensus for that. It also gives good advice. Why pop something into your signature where it will add unnecessary clutter to every single discussion edit you make, when you can put it into your user page? --Tony Sidaway 13:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, Tony? The section removed is quoted above in total. You're misrepresenting it as "just one line"; it just has one line in bold, and then significant expansion in the explanatory text. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean. The section I quoted above is substantially more than one line, and I have never claimed otherwise. --Tony Sidaway 19:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The words "it says only" followed by quoting the bolded text make it seem like that is the sum total of the wording of that section (or of your approved edits to it, at least). For me, at least, that's not the line I have a problem with; it's the explanatory text below that I think goes too far. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I think I could have worded my refutation better. Aaron claimed that it outlawed (other) internal links "by fiat", and I pointed out that it did nothing of the sort. I didn't mean that those were the only words, but that it was the whole of the intent--advice rather than a hard rule, and even then much milder than Aaron thought. Could you explain how you think the other text goes too far, and could you look at the suggested new version below and see if it works better? --Tony Sidaway 19:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the section. It doesn't say "only link to talk", just advice to not throw tons of them in. I think this view is held wildly enough that it is acceptable as a guideline. That is, unless you liked General Eisenhower's sig. (Special:Undelete/User:GeorgeMoney/Signature Poll/General Eisenhower, at least I think this is the one I am thinking of). The only internal link that really gets my goat is one to a page in someone else's userspace. Kotepho 18:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think possibly that some editors (Aaron amongst them) think that the section as removed was advising people to link only to the talk page. My mistake. I intended to advise the norm, which is the inclusion of a link to the talk page in addition to the default of the user page (Aaron may have been misled by the fact that I personally do not link to my user page because it's only a redirect to my talk page). I think it could be worded better. Here's an idea:
Internal links
Use internal links sparingly.
The default signature is a link to the user page. You may want to add a link to your talk page for people who want to discuss something with you person-to-person. Beyond that, use internal links sparingly. If you find a particular Wikipedia page useful, put it in your browser bookmarks, favorites list, or on your userpage—not in your signature.
I've also attempted to take notice of Inksplotch's direction and changed "you may" to "you may want to" so that it doesn't appear to be dictating precise actions.
There is nothing in that version or in the earlier version to suggest that Esperanza links are "outlawed", although it would be correct to state that unnecessary links are deprecated. In particular, it's probably okay to put a link to Esperanza's page at most once on each talk page to which that organization is relevant. The link doesn't belong at all on general discussion pages, so it's probably not a good idea to include it in your signature. Even if the Esperanza link does belong on a particular discussion page, it probably isn't a good idea to hide it away in your signature. --Tony Sidaway 19:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd call this tendentious editing. It's hardly a "rewrite" either. Perhaps, while discussions are ongoing, the page could have lived for a while in something other than Tony's version? Regardless, this section seems pointless. It's not an uncommon practice, it's not a terribly problematic behavior, and I don't see "consensus" for it's inclusion. Make the guideline as concise and precise as possible, without adding extra baggage like this paragraph. - brenneman {L} 00:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Aaron, I'm completly confused by this. First everyone is doing it and adding to the guideline is unlikely to change things, and now it's not common enough to warrant inclusion? Well, I ought to have said something earlier, but I like the revision, I think it's a worthwhile addition. And consensus moves along...
By the by, could someone tell me what "tendentious" means? My quickie web search suggests "marked by a tendancy in favor of a particualr point of view." I see it through around on WP almost like a synonym for "vandalism." Still, by the book definition, if someone is saying an other is pushing a POV, can we just say "pushing a POV?" --InkSplotch 21:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? I never said "everyone is doing it" or even that a mojority do it. The words I used were "frequent," "sprinkled liberally," and "not an uncommon practice." It is neither unknown (in which case it wouldn't need mentioning) nor used ny the majority (in which case a few editors sayong stop would be pointless.) It's done by a noticable minority, it's unlikely to change, and is probably redundant with the length item if someone linked seven pages in thier sig. - brenneman {L} 04:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I think my revision was good. I've no idea why Aaron thinks there is a problem with inserting a revision after discussion. --Tony Sidaway 21:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
On the word tendentious, I welcome its use on Wikipedia. "Pushing a POV" is an ugly bit of jargon that disfigures many Wikipedia discussions. The word tendentious should of course never be used to mean "vandalism". --Tony Sidaway 21:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
A lot of people have internal links in their signatures, and I did too, at one point (until someone told me that my sig was getting too long). An example is ILP. Freddie Message? 01:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why something like this:
  • Natalya 10:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC) - I chose Natalya as she is the current admin gen of Esperanza, and so is our representative.
is a problem. It's not even two lines long (especially if you disregard the time stamp). If a sig was full of internal links, and that, in turn, made the page significantly difficult to read while editing, then it would need to be looked at. However, if it is like the above example, then it should be left alone. I'm interested though, to find out why it probably isn't a good idea to hide it away (who's hiding it away? I'm proud) in your signature. It's all about personal choice seeing as this is a guideline, not policy. Thε Halo Θ 09:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course, this is a guideline, so it is really up to the editor, alongside the community, to decide whether having a link in his signature is appropriate. I would only remark that, as far as I can tell, there is seldom a need to put an internal link in your signature. If you think a talk page should have a link to a certain Wikipedia page, then putting it into the message body of one edit is surely preferable to adding to the clutter on every discussion page you edit, whether it needs the link or not, with every single edit you make to that page. However this guideline absolutely doesn't say you can't link to Esperanza in your signature. I don't know why you would want to do that when you have a whole userspace in which to do that, but there's nothing to stop you doing it. --Tony Sidaway 21:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Digression by Halo

Changing other people's sigs is very bad faith Tony. As I have already said, this is a guideline, and as you have said, it is up to the editor (which, in this case, is me), so I would like it if you would not change my statements, thank you very much.
You say two things which interest me greatly:
  1. ...so it is really up to...the community, to decide whether having a link in his signature is appropriate. - yes I would agree with this. I would, however, like to point out that so far the consensus seems to be that everyone else doesn't mind and that you're pushing your POV on sig on other users.
  2. ...there is seldom a need to put an internal link in your signature. Who decides what the need is? Seeing as this is a guideline, I would again point to it being up to the editor whether or not there is a need to put in an internal link.
Thε Halo Θ 00:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC) - please don't change it this time ;)
No, removing unnecessary clutter is normal good practise on a wiki. I'll leave one instance of your signature in full so that this section will still have all the links you think it should have, but not redundandtly. I have read your expression of what you believe to be community consensus, but I have to say that I have not found that to be the case.
Who decides what the need is? We use our common sense. Discussion pages are for discussion, not adding links to your favorite Wikipedia pages. You have a userspace and you can do it there. --Tony Sidaway 00:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Again you are using words like unnecessary. You are not appointed to judge what is unnecessary, and what isn't. You say that you haven't found my expression (It's all about personal choice...) not to be community consensus, but if that is the case, how come this is a guideline, not a policy? Thε Halo Θ 00:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't really understand most of the above (perhaps you're assuming to much about what I've said) but to address your point about necessity: I hope you will accept that it is not necessary, for instance, to have more than one link to your Esperanza subpage in every discussion you engage in. One should be enough (if indeed this discussion requires any link at all to that page, which I view as somewhat dubious). If you think this discussion needs a link to that page, perhaps it would be better to include a link to it in the body of an edit just once, accompanied by an explanation of why you think this page requires that link.
The purpose of discussion pages is not to fill a wiki page with multiple redundant copies of that link, but to engage in discussion. --Tony Sidaway 01:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid, Tony, that I don't fully understand your POV either, but I guess when you've got to editors who feel passionately about a subject, but have different views, that's what you're going to get ;)
To make my view clear, this is a guideline that says, use internal links sparingly, so I think that one internal link is quite sparing.
I also think that having a sig like mine promotes the community through individuality, and also makes it easy to see a comment made by me when just reading the page (as in *ah, the green e and one of those Θ. The Halo put that thing there...*).
I have now said all that I feel needs to be said, and I hope that it can be useful to this discussion.
Yours, Thε Halo Θ 09:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
PS - I've kept my sig the same, except that I have taken out it's internal links, per your request Tony.
I think we've been talking to cross purposes. You're talking about your signature, which I think is well within the guidelines. I'm just talking about what I consider to be desirable in a discussion page. If I encounter a Wikipedia page that seems to contain a lot of unnecessary clutter, especially if it makes it very difficult to edit the page, then I'll remove the clutter. This doesn't affect your signature at all; if you test the signature in your sandbox you'll see that I haven't altered it at all, and if you look at your original edit you'll see that this hasn't been tampered with either. But the talk page, which is a shared space, has been altered, in order to remove the clutter and redundancy.
On your comments about the community, remember that the community only exists insofar as it is necessary to write an encyclopedia. Promotion of a community for its own sake, whether "through individuality" or anything else, is probably counter-productive. --Tony Sidaway 08:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No consensus

As there does not appear to be consensus that this section should be included, I'm going to (re)remove it unless someone screams. --brenneman 06:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh I'd not scream, but I think it would be counter-productive to remove it. It expresses very well the undesirability of cluttering up talk pages with unnecessary internal links in signatures, and it follows from the purpose of signatures:
Signatures on Wikipedia identify you as a user, and your contributions to Wikipedia. They encourage civility in discussions by identifying the author of a particular comment, and the date and time at which it was made.
As such it's a useful and informative elaboration and will undoubtedly contribute to the tidiness of discussion pages. --Tony Sidaway 18:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

In the name of allah, merciful magnificient.


I provided wikepedia with an online article concerning muslim athletes participating in the Olympic games and I have not been able to locate it.

--imrana 0500; 11 september 2006

[edit] Additional guideline?

I've seen at least one user who changed their signature to just point to a Wikipedia article, with no links to their talk page or their user page. This makes finding out their contributions, finding their talk page, and etc. a pain in the ass, and is clearly counterproductive. I've recommended to them that they change this, but it seems to me that something should be made explicit here that if you change your signature, at least one of the links in it should point to either your user page or your talk page, because otherwise the signature does not "users to identify the author of a particular comment, to navigate talk pages, and to address specific comments to the relevant user(s), among other things". I think it's a pretty common sense requirement? Any objections? --Fastfission 14:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. I'd probably even go so far as to say that the signature must include a link somewhere to either the user's talk or user page, as those are the ones with Contribution histories. -- nae'blis 17:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of two edits by Vivaldi and 84.66.128.149

Vivaldi (talk • contribs) has edit the project page to remove what he regarded as a superfluous pipe from [[Color blindness|Colour blindness]]. Because color is spelled "colour" elsewhere in the page I have reverted this change.

84.66.128.149 (talk • contribs) has performed the following change:

"Signatures on Wikipedia identify you as a user, and your contributions to Wikipedia" -> "Signatures on Wikipedia identify you as a user, and your contributions to Wiki." The use of Wiki as a slang term for Wikipedia is both non-standard and misleading, so I've reverted that too. --Tony Sidaway 17:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I just changed the spelling of "colour" that appeared only in this section to coincide with the spelling of "color" that was linked to in wikipedia. Vivaldi (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guideline -> Official Policy

Since I can't think of a reason why this should't be a policy, I hence propose it. --Cat out 07:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. This should be policy. Ben Aveling 02:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Nah, we've got plenty of policy already. Sure, it's widely accepted but what will be the advantage of making this policy? Some editors are already rude as hell when discussing signatures, making this "policy" will only aggrevate that. And to what end? - brenneman {L}
I don't see why a minority of people finding a policy annoying is a good reason to not make something a policy. Society doesn't get rid of laws because some criminals are rude as hell when discussing them. I support. Hyacinth 18:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I support changing this from guideline to policy. Royalbroil T : C 14:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Instructions re unsigned talk posts

I found the instructions confusing, but I'm not confident I figured them out correctly, and so will rely on someone more familiar with the signature issues to revise this guideline page. First, casual mention was made of how one template adds the (UTC) automatically; what's a UTC, and why would you want to do that?

Second, the discussion of the templates (unsigned, unsignedPI, and unsigned2, all in wavy brackets) does not tell the hapless do-gooder that she or he will have to go look up the IP's and dates for all the unattributed remarks, and enter them manually. So! If there's away to avoid the lookups, please, someone, elucidate that in the guideline. And if there isn't, please clarify the manual steps as well. I'd do it myself if only I knew what I was doing.  :) -- Lisasmall 19:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oops...I accidently deleted something...I don't know, I'm a new user. Sorry about that.

Oops...I accidently deleted something...I don't know, I'm a new user. Sorry about that.

[edit] Signature Instructions During Registration

When I registered, I assumed that the "signature" box was for text that would appear after or below my username. That's the way it works on the bulletin boards I spend time on and they are the only kinds of places I've been involved in discussions online. So, today, when I fianlly made a comment on a discussion page, I saw my entry signed with a timestamp and with my signature quote (quis custodiet ipsos custodes), rather than with my user name. I tried to find guidance about what the signature box was for and only found this page. Perhaps one of you old-timers know where to suggest that the registration process include a little more guidance to us newbies. --Hjal 23:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The only place I can see to put such information that would help would be the preferences page itself. There's already a little bit of help at the bottom of the page. It would be nice to add a description of every configurable parameter, except that it would take more than the usual rights to do it, probably a developer, and it would then have to be maintained as people suggested improvements. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appearance and colour

Your signature should not blink, or otherwise inconvenience or be annoying to other editors.

  • Markup such as <big> tags (which produce big text), or line breaks (<br /> tags) are to be avoided, since they disrupt the way that surrounding text displays
  • Be sparing with superscript or subscript. In some cases, this type of script can also affect the way that surrounding text is displayed
  • Avoid making your signature so small that it is difficult to read
  • In consideration of users with vision problems, be sparing with colour. If you must use different colours in your signature, please ensure that the result will be readable by people with colour blindness.


This article needs much more about color-conflict issues, solutions, other solutions,...

Thank You.

hopiakuta ; <nowiki> { [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ; </nowiki>]] 01:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


I wanna discuss about something that really really hurts our Kosovar feelings. In some places there I read that what it says: Albanian language is spoken from 6 milion people, Albania, Serbia (including Kosovo)... i don't agree with that comment, because there is not much albanian population in that area "Serbia" because in Kosovo are almost 3 milion Albanians and in Serbia not more than 500,000. So why this person didn't include that : The Albanian language is spoken by over 6 milion people; Albania, Kosovo (including Serbia) ... ? Please explain that to me if there is no matter. If there is a matter just delete my discuss on this. Thanks w/r Gerywille!

[edit] Signatures in images

There is a proposal by Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk • contribs) about images in signatures. Please have a look there and have your say. - Aksi_great (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

History repeats itself. ~MDD4696 17:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
History strives to repeat itself, when man does not learn from his past mistakes. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 19:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signature {user : hopiakuta}

Part of your signature seems to be broken, leaving wiki code and odd characters strewn about the talk pages. You might want to fix it. eaolson 03:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do try inputting it; possibly, you would see my goal.

Is there a page where I could learn what characters I might try?

Thank You.

hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 03:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I can't make suggestions, because I don't know what you're trying to do. You might take a look at Wikipedia:How_to_fix_your_signature. Perhaps you need to specify "raw signature" in your preferences. eaolson 03:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If that page has character substitution suggestions, then I could not locate them on the various occasions when I'd tried it. Wherever it would be, that's what I would need.

Although raw signature does make a change, it's too far in the opposite direction. When I'm on an unsigned page, I often need something that I can quickly copy|paste, in order to distinguish what I've scribed.

This has been far faster than anything else that I've tried.

So, halfway between raw, & not raw, would be my preference.

Thank You.

hopiakuta ; [[ ]] { ¡ ¿ ~~~~ } ; 04:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 04:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure what you mean by "cut and paste". You should be able to insert your signature by using 4 tildes ~~~~, so no cut and pasting should be necessary. eaolson 13:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No, cut. Yes, copy. The paste is not f/ the signature, only the distinction {distinguish, separation}. I do not like the appearance of a run-on hodge podge comment, unless it is sincerely mine, where I'm attempting to comment on several issues.

When other persons' comments appear that way, it is very difficult to figure what I'm responding to, & whom, historylogs, et al.

Thank You.

hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 14:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I do hope that the reason to paste this here is self evident.

Thank You.

hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 14:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two weeks ago,

I'd requested assistance.

Now, it's nearly gotten my account deleted.

Please?

hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 23:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unsigned template - time/datestamp

Anyone think it's a good idea to add an optional time/date argument to the unsigned template? Obviously the person applying the template would have to first jot down the timestamp info. This would help when tagging suspected sockpuppet activity. Currently i'm adding superscript at TIME on DATE. Comments/ideas? /Blaxthos 03:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Try this one: {{unsigned2}}.
Use it like this: {{unsigned2|03:20, 31 October 2006|Blaxthos}}
To produce this: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blaxthos (talk • contribs) 03:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
-- AuburnPilottalk 03:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armenians

[[ == By history, no have any armenian or ermeni names. Have hayks and arsaks. Word of ermeni which mean YermeniM (mean by english; my ground, by Azerbaijanian; yer menim, by Turkish; yer benim) Name of "Yermenim" give to area Amir Timur (Timurlan) at 14 centry. Name of armenians is falsified name. ==]]

—the preceding comment is by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) : Please sign your posts!.

[edit] siggy

can sum1 pleez tel me how 2 make my siggy a certain font? --User:Jesusfreek2 06:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two weeks ago,

I'd requested assistance.

Now, it's nearly gotten my account deleted.

Please?

hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 23:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grandfather's name

I don't know if this the right place to ask this question but here goes.

My grandfather came from Lithuania, but I have no idea where. He came to America around early 1900's. From what I understand his family had some wealth and he was studying for the priest hood.

He left there for America because Russia was taking over their land and killing people. His Last name as we can find out was of this spelling (George Patalonas) I cannot find any trace of such name.

Any help well be greatly appreciated.

He was born around 1886 in Lithuania his wife was born 1887 Russian decent. Her name was (Victoria Andralunka) spelling may be of a little.

If this is the wrong place to ask can someone direct me to a place to search.

James Pataluna, (e-mail address removed)

You could try Google. Unless your grandfather was well known, Wikipedia is not a good place to find what you are looking for. Sorry. ~MDD4696 16:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Has anyone ever thought to do this (this might have been suggested already, but I'm rather in a hurry and don't have time to read): Make a subpage under your userpage and have a signature there, then make your signature in your preferences be {{:User:Miltopia/Signature}}? That seems like it would not clog up the editing window and it wouldn't bother anyone. Plus, it would change everywhere you've signed when you changed your signature, which would help clear up confusion. Miltopia 01:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

And would be a massive unnecessary drain on the servers, what with changing every single page you'd ever posted on every single time you changed your signature, and would be a gaping target for vandalism, allowing vandals to vandalise every single page you'd ever posted on. Transcluding signatures isn't even possible for these reasons - see the guideline. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh. Miltopia 03:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Categories, however, can be included. I just tested.[1] Of course, it's among the worst ideas ever, but I don't think it's directly against the rules. --tjstrf talk 05:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to -Ril-

Signatures have been the subject of Requests for Comment, as well as resulting in some very heated debates. In one case, a user who refused to alter an unsuitable signature was ultimately required to change it by the Arbitration Committee (See -Ril-'s arbitration case).

This seems to be an unnecessary thing to include.
Set aside for a moment the fact that signatures comprise a minor amount of the material covered by the request for arbitration. And set aside the fact that the nature of the explanation of the signature problems isn't even very clearly spelled out in that request.
First and foremost, it is grossly inappropriate to isolate a single contributer (no matter how you may feel about their actual contributions) as a negative example of any conduct.
We're talking about a guideline page that many people will read. Even if the request for arbitration had dealt solely with -ril-'s signature, it would still be incredibly negative in tone to hold them up as an example.

In summary:
It doesn't actually illustrate the point: It isn't explained well enough in the article for deletion.
It sets a negative tone for the project page: Picking on a user, no matter what they've done, is inappropriate.
The entire segment I've quoted really should be removed. Bladestorm 21:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Referencing the arbitration case is necessary if we wish to show that arbitration cases have been filed over signatures. It's not defaming the user or anything, arbcom cases are available for public viewing anyway. As a compromise I suggest that the portion which mentions Ril be put in ref tags so that it doesn't show up at the top of the page. --tjstrf talk 22:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's at all true. More significantly, I don't think it's all necessary to cite any examples or specific instances in the slightest. You can easily just leave it as the first two paragraphs of that section:
A distracting, confusing or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users. Some editors find it disruptive to discourse on talk pages, or when working in the edit window. Very long signatures that contain a lot of code ("markup") make it difficult for some editors to read talk pages while editing.
If asking another user to change their signature, remember to remain polite. If you are asked to change your signature, please avoid interpreting a polite request as an attack. As Wikipedia is based on working together in harmony, both parties should work together to find a mutually acceptable solution.
more than amply does the job. Simply put, I don't think it's at all necessary to make a single person stand out when it isn't necessary. Can other people read about that arbitration? Sure. But that doesn't mean that a link to it belongs on a guideline page. Similarly, it isn't customary to cite specific infractions of every possible bad behaviour discouraged on wikipedia, is it?
For reference, look at Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. Notice that they didn't choose to cite an example of a specific person for such behaviour. Bladestorm 22:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The statement "People can be forced to change their signature" is less self-evident than the statement "People can be forced not to make personal attacks", so I don't think the comparison stands up. Hundreds of people have been blocked or banned for personal attacks - so far as I know, very few people have been forced to change signature and Ril is the only one I'm aware of where the change was forced by Arbcom. That's why a "yes, this did happen, see here for the full case" sentence is beneficial, IMO. Plus, if we did point out a single incident out of the numerous personal attacks, then we really would be unfairly singling them out ("why me out of thousands?"); when the situation is more unique that doesn't apply.
However, I see no reason why Ril should actually be mentioned by name in this guideline, so I've changed that. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photograph

I believe the photograph with Lester Pearson should also include in the Caption "Nobel Prize Winner"

Canking 23:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You should raise this on Talk:Lester B. Pearson, or alternatively be bold and change it yourself. This page is for discussing the 'sign your posts' guideline. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to discourage changing the background color

Some time has passed since the straw poll on images in sigs. and people seem to have survived this transition. Now I'd like to propose taking the next step and adding wording to the guideline to strongly discourage blocks of color or setting the background color in sigs. These sigs are unnecessarily disruptive and distracting on talk pages, in much the same way that images are/were disrupting. I propose the following change to the section on Appearance and colour:

  • Markup that sets the background color such as <font style="background:red"> or <span style="background:red"> tag (which produce text with a coloured background) are to be avoided, since they are distracting

This changes the section to:

Your signature should not blink, or otherwise inconvenience or be annoying to other editors.

  • Markup such as <big> tags (which produce big text), or line breaks (<br /> tags) are to be avoided, since they disrupt the way that surrounding text displays
  • Markup that sets the background color such as <font style="background:red"> or <span style="background:red"> tags (which produce text with a coloured background) are to be avoided, since they are distracting
  • Be sparing with superscript or subscript. In some cases, this type of script can also affect the way that surrounding text is displayed
  • Avoid making your signature so small that it is difficult to read
  • In consideration of users with vision problems, be sparing with colour. If you must use different colours in your signature, please ensure that the result will be readable by people with colour blindness.

—Doug Bell talk 11:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply from User:Hopiakuta: (this off-topic edit removed from reply)

There are various words which have vastly disputed spelling. Is there some way that this website can better respect that virtually any word can be variously represented?
Please note plough, plow,... as well as colour, color {above}.
Respecting issues such as color blindness is excellent; but, how is someone to judge good color versus bad color?... Unless there is a comparison-chart?
As f/ background color, there are likely a variety of cases where this element has caused some persons to find the signature illegible.
One option is to delete color from both the background & the font regarding signatures.
Thank You.
[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 04:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I've pre-emptively changed mine:  ProhibitOnions  (T) 09:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More and more messages being included in signatures

After discussion from the Village Pump, one of the things that has come out of that discussion is that people are customising their signatures with messages. Many of these are biased and fail WP:NPOV. These messages can look like they are part of a discussion.

As an example I made up: Vote delete for this article - JohnSmithtalk • contribs 08:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ones I have seen include a slogan from a movie, an editor saying that a major company rules and I have seen one asking people to vote delete for a AfD nomination (which drew some discontent from others).

My suggestion is that the inclusion of messages should not be allowed, they can fail WP:NPOV, are disruptive, can cause confusion within a discussion and adds further to the length of the signature. --tgheretford (talk) 08:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think WP:NPOV can apply the non-articles, but I agree that political type message shouldn't be included in sigs. ---J.S (T/C) 01:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notify users to sign their comments

In the "dealing with unsigned comments," section, I recommended that people notify users, especially new users, that they should sign their comments. It's pretty much common sense, I thought. Robocracy 14:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop using 'Example' as example

I briefly looked at this page to figure out how to sign a post, and in my brief glance, it didn't seem that just using the four tildes was enough to get your entire signature down. So instead of just using four tildes, I used four tildes followed by my username.

In my haste, I didn't realize that signing as someone else would obviously invalidate the whole point of signing. If you used 'SampleUser' in the place of 'Example' for the username it'd be much clearer to people who are just trying to quickly get the gist of signing. Keenman76 16:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I made the change. Hows it look now? ---J.S (T/C) 01:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yep, that looks much better now. Thanks very much for making the change. Keenman76 06:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signatures that display an entirely different name than the username

I've encountered this a couple of times, and it's annoying. Not signatures that show a clear abbreviation of the username, but those that show an entirely different name. It makes it difficult, for example, to compare edit histories with the content of talk pages, or to determine who a user is in some text-based browsers. I would like to suggest that "Correct username must appear in signature" or similar become part of the guideline.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 13:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I completely agree. I thought about suggesting this addition to the guidelines myself. I think signatures first and foremost need to be useful and that creativity should not interfere with their function, which is to a) identify the user making the comment; b) provide a convenient link to the user. —Doug Bell talk 23:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree as well. In fact, there's an even worse crime than using a misleading name: signing your comment as if it came from another user (and people aren't always going to bother looking at the edit history). For instance, I could sign my post here as if it came from Doug Bell ... —Doug Bell talk 05:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC). However, I don't think there's an easy way to enforce this, except making a policy that specifically states that users caught doing this are immediately indef-banned. Cheers, Yuser31415@?#& 05:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC) (AND NO, THIS ISN'T A FAKE SIGNATURE).
    I think immediate indef banning is a bit harsh.  :-) But it is something that should be actionable. —Doug Bell talk 06:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I do think any type of immediate blocking may be a little harsh. Blocking should only be used if the user keeps refusing to change their signature as per WP:SIG and [

[WP:BLOCK]]. At least take it to dispute resolution first. Yes, I agree, but how far do we take it. Take my signature, it omits a hash but it is the username I use. Will I be indef blocked? It's not someting a few editors do either, if you look up this page, you will see a good number of people do it as well. --tgheretford (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

    • Yuser31415's indef ban comment was in regards to users that deliberately attempt to impersonate another user by how they sign their post. It wasn't in reference to users that have a signature that doesn't match their user name character-for-character. Also, the title of this section says entirely different name. Although I'd prefer if everyone just stuck with the actual name, my real beef is when the name is so different that if I refer to the user on the talk page using their real user name, then nobody knows who I'm talking about because it has no relationship to the displayed name. —Doug Bell talk 10:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
      • The text does read "Most users choose a signature name that is either identical or closely related to their account name to avoid confusion. Signatures that obscure your account name to the casual reader may be seen as disruptive." I was just wondering whether we should make this a little more robust.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 11:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, I would strengthen the language. I think Yuser has another good point that should be included regarding deliberate impersonation, unless that's covered in a policy page somewhere. (Since this page is a guideline, the impersonation might be more appropriately discussed in a policy page.) —Doug Bell talk 11:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
          • I agree per Doug and ProhibitOnions. Really it's one of these Catch-22s, and I liken it to importing illegal goods - they are hard to detect, but the penalty is severe enough no one dares take the risk. It would be possible for me to severely deface a popular user by signing comments as if they came by that user. Someone would have to check the page history to find out, and that would be unlikely in the middle of, for example, a heated debate. Strengthening the language, even asking ArbCom to make a policy forbidding deliberate impersonation of other users, would be a good step in my opinion. Cheers, Yuser31415@?#& 22:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
            • While I agree with the ideas here, I do need to point out some of the practical failings. First, ArbCom doesn't make policy, they arbitrate distputes. The community makes policy, and rarely, policy decisions are handed down from above (e.g. the Foundation, or Jimbo). Also, it is actually not that unlikely that impersonation will be caught. But I still agree with the idea that this is worth specifically calling out as an actionable offense. —Doug Bell talk 22:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with the view of this as an issue. Much like the do not impersonate other usernames rule, this is considerably similar with the difference that the infraction can be dealt with slightly less harsh than the initial immediate blocks given to username violaters (maybe inacting more serious measures when the user refuses to change it as mentioned above). I'm not so sure about those who sign real names or pen names in replacement of their usernames however. If the real name/pen name in use is considerably confusing/misleading (such as signing the names of famous people, linking sigs to irrelavant pages rather than user/talk pages, etc.); then it does have cause of action for a minor to more serious warning depending on the situation.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: I think the impersonation issue is currently covered in official policy at: Wikipedia:Username#Signatures, so probably no instruction creep there. That still leaves the issue of signatures using pen names other than the user name. —Doug Bell talk 01:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I strengthened the phrasing a couple of days ago, but please write more if you see any need for it.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 09:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree I do not like it when other users hide their username with something so different from their username. But I have dropped the .M.S out of my sig is this okay? — Seadog (Talk) 18:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe it is Seadog. The underlying problem is not subtlely different signatures but those which are drastically different than the username or misleading.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes I agree with Persian Poet—nobody will be confused between Seadog and Seadog.M.S —Doug Bell talk 20:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I hate to point fingers, but an example would be Pmanderson. Look at his talk page, you'll see a user called "Septentrionalis" among the contributors. You would never guess that that is Pmanderson himself, and you would have no way of knowing that it is unless you go through and check what links to every single signature or examine the page source code. Search for the username in a normal browser window and you won't find anything. This is why this sort of thing is quite unhelpful.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: I posted this as an example before this user's RFA, during which the signature became an issue for some users; this user has now modified it somewhat to address these concerns. This comment was not intended to influence that vote. ProhibitOnions (T) 11:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: I strengthened the phrasing at Wikipedia:Username#Signatures to include:

In no circumstance should a signature be used to impersonate another user.

—Doug Bell talk 20:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Good job. I've been impersonated before (a troll using the name "Prohibit0nions" with a zero) so I certainly agree that making clear this applies to signatures as well is a very good idea.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of a template for signature

Another issue I've come across is User:DarknessLord, who stores his signature at User:DarknessLord/Sig. He has a redirect page at Template:Dlord, and thus sometimes signs with {{Dlord}}. This is nonstandard, and an inappropriate use of template space (the redirect page is not in userspace). However, the guideline refers to templates only obliquely and does not mention non-tilde signatures such as this. Is this enough of an issue to say something about it in the guideline?  ProhibitOnions  (T) 20:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need policy as this use of templates is already disallowed elsewhere, but put the {{Dsig}} template up for deletion at WP:TfD. —Doug Bell talk 20:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking the same, but someone's already speedied it. Problem solved.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 09:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I did that after leaving a comment on his talk page. —Doug Bell talk 20:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
So you did. Good job.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 22:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I always thought Dlords sig was too long. Just click the edit this page button and you will notice that it takes a fourth of the edit screen up. — Seadog (Talk) 18:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Yep, that's a lot of code. Doug did warn him, though; perhaps he'll take heed and change it.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 22:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I applaud Doug for doing so also. — Seadog 22:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Backgrounds etc

Hey all. I've changed my long coded background colored hideous sig to the absolute minimum (details here). That's probably temporary, since I'm in a minimalistic mood lately.

However, I strongly disagree with this latest fad for shortening codes, making sigs not stick out in the text, etc etc. My view is that the term "signature" has strong personal connotations and is one of the most powerful tools (both literally, and why not also in WP) of expressing one's self. Your signature reflects you. I think this whole thing should be largely left to users to decide for themselves (within reason), just like we decide how we'll sign e.g. our tax-form. If people are offended by long and colored sigs, then IMHO they are wrong in principle, since they are violating other people's right to self-expression and self-identification.

Why shouldn't one's sig stick out in the talks? I find it quite useful to locate mine and other people's comments in lengthy debates.

Regarding the edit-window code-clutter argument, I sympathize, but I think there are many ways to get around that (e.g. hit enter between comments for Christ's sake!). In extreme cases (e.g. bulleted intermingled responses), as a courtesy to the other responders, I myself (and others I know) have used short initials (e.g. --NS) and have signed normally below the bulletted text.(e.g. here) This would be a nice suggestion to include in the project page.

So, in short, have users decide how their sig will look like. Have them judge the color and other features as they feel. Just specify some absolute rules for code length (my opinion is <300 chars) and color-blind issues (with a concrete color chart). Then let people express themselves freely, and identify themselves as they wish. NikoSilver 11:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is first and foremost a free encyclopedia. Unless WP:SIG states that: long coded background colored hideous sig is people's right to self-expression and self-identification (and I don't see any consensus for this); then they are for a reason frowned upon. feydey 12:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
To me, my signature looks like ais523, but most of you won't see it look that way at the end of this comment; it's perfectly possible to create a user-script that responds to signatures. Individuality in signatures is a good thing, though (if you look closely you'll notice that my sig isn't the default, and not just due to the lowercase a at the start), as long as it doesn't clog up the edit screen or violate policies. --ais523 15:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
That UTC thing is clever, ais523! I've run into you so often on talkpages, and I never even noticed that. riana_dzasta (talk • contribs) (signed out) 16:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
To Feydey: Encyclopedias are written and read by people. Now the part that is read doesn't have any sigs. But the people who write might just want to feel a little more than robots. You can't just crush someone's personality by altering their signature (of all things!). I seriously doubt there is a consensus here consisting of a wide representation of WP. To prove what I mean, just count the colored/tweaked/different sigs in -say- WP:RfA. NikoSilver 01:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with your sig, and I fail to see the point of the above statement. Basically try to stay in line with the guidelines, remember of all things we are trying to collaboratively try to create an encyclopedia. — Seadog 01:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
This is not a personal complaint (although could be, please start reading from the beginning of this section). Also, you might just want to feel human to "create an encyclopedia". PS. I like your sig. NikoSilver 02:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propose banning non-standard / raw signatures.

I would like to see the funcionality to customise signatures in any way banned (yes, I realise my own sig is currently customised, this has no bearing on this discussion). I would like to see all signatures as just a standard-formatted link to the user's page. I don't think user's should be able to edit this at all, by changing colours, adding other links, swapping in a name other than their username, nothing. Non-standard signatures are confusing, often garish, with indecipherahle single-character links to separate pages, all sorts. But my main beef with them is that signatures (and user pages too) and becoming increasingly more "myspace.com" than anything and detracting from wikipedia as a serious scholarly enterprise. I would like to start a big discussion on this. Are there any arguments whatsoever for allowing customised signatures? - PocklingtonDan 19:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This proposal is fine with me. It certainly cuts to the heart of the issue and avoids protracted discussions about where to draw various lines on acceptability. We are here after all to write an encycplopedia, and the custom sigs do seem like they are more of a distraction than a benefit at this point. —Doug Bell talk 19:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I find a link directly to the user talk page to be usefull, add that to the default signature and we would be set as far as I'm concerned. I'd support this, but only if it was implemented on a technical level, otherwise it would cause 10 times more red tape and drama than the removal of some flashy signatures are worth. --Sherool (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I actully do not mind custom sigs but what I really dislike are the ones with backgrounds and a different color for each letter. That is distracting, also sigs with wiki links that take you out of the users userspace is annoying and is very confusing to newcomers. — Seadog 19:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like instruction creep to me. We already have admonitions against overly embellished or disruptive signatures; most people, I feel, either know where the line is or are willing to back off with their sigs if questioned. Signatures shouldn't show up in articlespace anyway, so they shouldn't affect the encyclopedia's scholarly appearance much. This, by the way, is coming from someone without a customized sig. Crystallina 19:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Um how is cutting away most of this guideline and just say "No custum signatures. Period. Full stop." amount to instruction creep? I'd say it's more like the polar opposite of instruction creep. It just doesn't get any simpler than that. --Sherool (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify I am proposing this as being implemented at a technical level, so there is no longer any ability to customise a signature. We would agree on a standard template for signature (probably something simple, useful and uncontroversial like "USERNAME (TALK) - TIMESTAMP") and that's all that happens ever for anyone when they sign a post, with no option in preferences to have anything else. As pointed out, this is the opposite of instruction creep, it simplifies everything for everyone and gets rid of a feature that doesn't really add anything to wikipedia. This would be trivial to implement for the coding teamt oo. - PocklingtonDan 19:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • And the template can be in MediaWiki namespace so that it can be modified by admins for all users as may be needed in the future. —Doug Bell talk 19:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I highly doubt a complete ban on custom signatures will ever get implemented. There are too many useful exceptions and there will be too much dissent. The question, then, would be to figure out where to draw the line. The problem with this is that everyone has a different idea of where this line should be. You could either use a common-sense approach or you could meticulously lay out guidelines - X is disruptive, T isn't, Z is disruptive but only if X and Y are also included. The latter would be problematic and it is what I was referring to. Crystallina 20:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I came across that way. — Seadog 20:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't referring to you, or anyone in particular, don't worry. Sorry if my comment gave you the impression that I was. Crystallina 20:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this as likely to be implemented, nor necessary. While over-formatting is obnoxious, it's only rarely actually disruptive. Sigs aren't in articles, so it's not like they're hurting the readers any. Additionally, anything particularly harmful (like putting a category in your sig, or using it to canvass AfD votes) would be easily dealt with on a case by case basis. --tjstrf talk 21:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Letting people put little pictures of daisies in their signature or external links to their favourite death metal band isn't really disruptive either, but the point is that these things (as with signature customization) don't add anything either, I don't see their worth and as you point out yourself a lot are obonxious. Others mention "useful exceptions" to a standardised signature, but no-one has listed an example. A signature is a note on who placed the edit and when, that is its sole goal. Anything else is irrelevant. Crystallina mentions "dissent" but I don't think the issue of support or lack of it for this measure is actually relevant either - wikipedia isn't really a democracy and the fact that lots of people might want custom signatures doesn't really argue for their use. I'd rather have a discussion here than some form of vote, which is after all the general operating principle of wikipedia. At the risk of labouring the point, what if any benefits are there of having this hideous array of customisable signatures? What are the "useful exceptions" where a custom signature would be of genuine use? Getting rid of custom signatures would:
  • Stop chasing over individuals breaking rules
  • stop need for maintenance of elaborate set of rules over what was allowed
  • reduce serverload by not having to look up signature preference
  • reduce clutter
  • increase readability of discussions
  • make image of discussion pages more scholarly and less like myspace.com
What reasons are there for keeping them? - PocklingtonDan 21:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Re: dissent - Wikipedia, although not a democracy, works by building consensus. If there are several reasonable objections, there isn't really consensus. I'm not asking for a vote nor am I voting. I'm merely stating my opinion on this proposal.
Little pictures of daisies and external links to death metal or other bands are already covered in the text as written (images and external links are both frowned upon already). There are plenty of useful exceptions to a standardized signature: talk page, user contributions, link to a user's email, etc. I'm pulling all of these from users' signatures from the archive of this talk page. There are probably more. Some people may find it useful for people to save a few clicks by offering a small, inconspicuous link to contribs or email in their signature. Their argument would be that it facilitates communication and makes it easier for newer users to locate talk pages, etc.
Out of all the customized signatures I've seen, I've run across maybe a handful that I felt were disruptive enough to decrease readability or make Wikipedia look like Myspace. I don't find that this amount of incidents merits a complete removal of the custom signature feature. Crystallina 22:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Heavily customised sigs do give me a belly ache, but I don't think campaigning for complete change is feasible right now, considering how many people do have colourful signatures. It would be nice if we could limit the links in the signatures to the user page and the user talk page, perhaps the users' contributions as well. No external links, no links to any space outside userspace. Canvassing votes in sigs should definitely be stopped. But setting out hard and fast guidelines is a bit like instruction creep. riana_dzasta 01:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As you say, ruling out more and more new things people add to their sigs equals instruction creep, and patrolligng them all leads to unnecessary admin work. The more things that are explicitly ruled against, the closer you approach an equivalence with not allowing custom signatures in any case. It just seems to me this is something wikipedia should just bite the bullet and do. - PocklingtonDan 08:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
You all seem to pass lightly on "sigs don't help, and we are here to write an encyclopedia". Well, people, no. Sigs do help. They help in many things:
  • Chiefly to make the editor feel human even in an artificial environment such as WP. I find this highly productive towards "writing an encyclopedia".
  • To distinguish someone's comment within a lengthy debate.
  • To help in spotting double votes
Just go ahead and check WP:RfA, which is one of the most serious processes here in WP that involve polls/signatures. From a quick look, I would say that not more than 5% of the voters have normal sigs. I find all these efforts WP:CREEP and agree to Crystallina. NikoSilver 02:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I do however agree with that, There are just way to many users who don't use the normal sig. — Seadog 02:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/i/g/Wikipedia_talk%7ESign_your_posts_on_talk_pages_9188.html"