Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:32, 10 December 2009

Template:Active editnotice

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

This page is for discussion of the Misplaced Pages:Signatures page itself, and Misplaced Pages's signature guidelines. To ask questions about how to use Misplaced Pages, see the Help desk. To get help with reference questions, see the Reference desk.

• WT:SIG

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

This page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived.

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Template:Misplaced Pages ad exists

Transclusion of signatures

Misplaced Pages:Signature#Transclusion_of_templates says that transclusion of signatures are forbidden. Is this still consensus? This signature was transcluded into about 1,000 pages and then deleted. This signature is transcluded into more than 1,000 pages. There is plenty of other transcluded signatures. In view of the strong words "forbidden", shouldn't something be done about this? Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 03:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We can do any of the following:

• Modify the tasks of an existing bot to do it for us
• Or manually replace it.

I hope it helps. Alexius08 (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that any code you enter in the nickname box that contains an element to be transcluded automatically has "subst" added to it. That would make insert the entire code when saved. Over at my wiki we worked around this to trick the software to just leave a transclusion link. Of course, my wiki is tiny compared to here and vandalism is a rare occurrence over there. If only custom sigs like at my wiki can be a built-in feature to the MediaWiki software. And only the user himself/herself or a sysop could edit the sig page, just like the personal monobook.css and similar. That would make things easier to read in edit mode. Back to the point. Is the section on the project page correct? To the best of my knowledge it is not, or at least incomplete. It does not address the difference between adding transcluded signatures manually or by the nickname box. As far as I know, the nickname box does not add permanent transclusions to pages. Without using my wiki's little trick of course. But I have not seen that anywhere else.Matt (talk) 08:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No, there aren't "plenty of transcluded signatures." People that use them are politely told to stop, and if they don't, they will be troutted and the problem will be forcibly fixed for them. Transcluded signatures will not happen. Please see brion's message if you're in doubt. --slakr 21:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No offense intended, but Brion's message seems a little biased. What is so bad about transclusions in signatures? The server load is negligible. They make the edit view less messy. They reduce the page size considerably. They allow larger signatures than the nickname box allows. it is easier to edit them since you can change the page they are on and see the result instantly without having to edit some other page by copying it over. The only real downside is that they can be vandalized. And that can easily be averted by simple semi-protection.--Matt (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, one of the reasons for the 255 character limit is to encourage less "flashy" signatures so users don't go overboard as some like to do. A single transclusion isn't that big of a deal, but if everyone and their uncle started transcluding signatures, performance issues could come into play. –xeno (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of the higher up members at Zelda Wiki.org, myself included, either tranclude signatures or manually use signature templates. Mine is here. It is not particularly flashy or anything. But the code to so long that it would be a nightmare in the edit view. Our policy there is basically the reverse of how it is here. If someone has a really long signature, we request to them to make it transcluded. We have been doing this for several months with no ill side effects. Transcluded sigantures has far less server load than pictures. Considerably less in fact. If every single one of our users had a transcluded signature, it still would have less impact on our server than even a small number of our pictures.--Matt (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but it does look pretty flashy to me. A little over the top. And en.wiki gets a heck of a lot more traffic than zeldawiki... –xeno (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well that version is less flashy than this one. I've seen a lot far flashier ones like: ] Come give me a message at ]. But it was in a lot of bright colors. That seems way to over the top.--Matt (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyhow, Brion's word is pretty much law around here when it comes to performance issues... –xeno (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

... I haven't seen a developer talking about that in the archive? --Amalthea 20:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

See the diff linked above my slakr... Wasn't said here... –xeno (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I guess I shouldn't have only searched the archives, thanks. :) --Amalthea 21:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I assume that the actual load problem starts when people change their signatures often, and thousands of talk pages have to be updated. For example, xeno, only #1000 on the List of Wikipedians by number of edits, has left up to 14,000 signatures, judging by his edits. That's probably not much compared to how often {{citation needed}} or {{reflist}} is transcluded, but if people started tweaking their signatures regularly we'd end up with a considerably longer job queue.
I'd welcome transcluded signatures for the visual clarity, and the other problems listed at WP:Signatures could be overcome by changing the archive bots and using a page like Special:Mypage/.js that can only be edited by the user himself, but I'm not sure the additional load is worth it. --Amalthea 20:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What Brion basically said was that he hates transcluded signatures. He exaggerated the downsides and said that they have no useul purpose at all. This is quite clearly not true. As I said before, they make the edit view on pages less cluttered. They save on page size. That saves much more server load than it can take. They make it easy for users to revert to an older version of their signatures if they would like. They make editing signatures far easier. The only real arguments against this is server load and vandalism. Vandalism is easily prevented with semi-protection. And the server load it takes does not exceed the server load it saves in page sizes. Larger pages take longer and more computing power to update. There is no contest. It is much better to have transcluded signatures than a mess of code.--Matt (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I think I'll coin a term here. I'll call a signature with transcluded content a transig.

Brion is always right, and that's why we're happy to have him as our head nerd when it comes to all things server-y. When he's not right, one must surely have an incorrect definition of "right." :P

...but seriously, brion is always right. --slakr 07:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

There are also other drawbacks of transcluded signatures. First, some people might not appreciate your ability to change old signatures, it's almost like changing your message afterwards. Second, I do not want to see the whole mess of all transcluded signatures at the bottom when I need to edit the whole discussion page. Third, with transcluded signatures you could create a very complex and long signature which other people then would have to load as HTML at their expense. —AlexSm 14:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait, so...

Say I've got a sig page and I substitute it into my preferences, e.g. {{subst:User:Master of Puppets/Signature}}. How is that any different than just using the raw code? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 08:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I would like to know the same thing... Vandalism Destroyer | Need to complain to me? 08:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Your sig is 454 characters long (the raw code box purposefully has a 255 character limit), thereby demonstrating one of the problems with using subst'd sigs. (You are forcing me to read/ignore almost 5 lines of unnecessary html code in the edit-window...).

I could subtly vandalize User:Vandalism destroyer/signature to show you the other danger, but I won't. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? How about now? Moving the signature to a .css page protects anybody but me and administrators from editing it in any way. :) UntilItSleeps PublicPC 19:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Replace talk pages and signatures with forums-style discussion pages

Talk pages could be replaced with forums-style discussion pages where posts are automatically signed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Foober (talk • contribs) 16:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? Amalthea 19:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That is a constant request. It is under development at mw:Extension:LiquidThreads. Coming soon.... (has been for years now) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Template for timestamp only

Is there a template for adding only the timestamp for comments where the poster has mentioned his username only? I tried by giving the username field blank but it turned up like this: "—Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • contribs) 12:55, 11 November 2006". Jay (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

{{Undated}} has what you're looking for, if you haven't found it already. I saw it on the "Unsigned Templates" on the right of {{Unsigned}}. Revelian (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I had not found it, thanks! The template has a problem though - I've mentioned it on the talk page. Jay (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism and SineBot exclusion

For some reason, this talk page is attracting plenty of irrelevant posts, which are thankfully being immediately reverted. The unfortunate part is SineBot is signing them before it can be reverted. I suggest to exclude SineBot from this talk page. Jay (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Aside from using {{nobots}}, I'm not sure how we would do that. Perhaps speak to slakr? Enigma 01:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That template works very well. I'm going to put an instance of it at the top of this page, so when this section is archived, the problem doesn't reappear. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Signature substitution

Xeno, Garden changed the policy a while ago since one use of substituted signatures which isn't making any problems, if no mistakes are made, is to have randomized colors or any such dynamic logic in your signature, as Garden has and I think some others used to have, too. The source of those signatures is often quite lengthy, but the substituted version is as short as a normal signature is, so the reason for the discouragment per your edit isn't quite correct.
Since the problems Brion was talking about only apply to transcluded signatures, not to substituted ones, I don't even see a reason to discourage it, but I'd be OK with it. The reason should be changed again though. --Amalthea 19:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I met Garden in the middle, not encouraging substitution ("it's allowed!" - which leads to the slippery slope of people making garish and lengthy signatures) but not completely disallowing it. Frankly Garden's change wasn't necessary as anyone smart enough to program a nifty signature like that is smart enough to ignore the rule against substitution, as I mentioned in the earlier discussion on this. –xeno (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the opposition he was facing was based on the policy page, and he was encouraged to change it IIRC.
Anyhow, as I said I'm fine with the discouragement, but wanted to point out that the stated reason isn't quite correct, and I'd rather just remove it. --Amalthea 19:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the word "typically" before the two reasons substitution is discouraged, those clever folks with the cool signatures will know they are atypical and continue with their lives, happily substing their signatures as they go. Tweak as desired. –xeno (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Perfect. ;) Cheers, Amalthea, non-clever signature user. 19:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Customisation

sorry for sounding stupid but i try to find somewhere in here that say's how to change the color, but i only find guidelines.QueenofHearts (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The easiest way to change your signature from red to blue is of couse to create your user page. If you want to change it beyond that: I notice you already have a customized signature, so you already know how to change the wikicode that creates it. If you want to colorize it I'd recommend you have a look at other editor's signatures, and look how they do it. For example, edit this page and search for "Enigma". Also, see Misplaced Pages:Customisation#User name and signatures. Cheers, Amalthea 16:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't you guys mat least mention how to change the color of your signature? I've seen many signatures with many different colors.QueenofHearts (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh well. Having a fancy signature is not really essential for the encyclopaedia. But feel free to expand on it at Misplaced Pages:Customisation. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 16:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

talk GiovanniBA (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

yeah.....they have the option, wikipedia should have some explanatoin somewhere. its jsut odd. i hate it when they hide this kinda stuff.

This page is about policies and guidelines. See also has links to stuff like Misplaced Pages:How to fix your signature. Also check out ] (WP:EIW)) which will link you to most anything, such as User:NikoSilver/Signature shop and more. See also User:Smurrayinchester/Tutorial/Signature. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  - 17:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Signature substitution 2

Concerning this change: Allstarecho, any reason for making this change? The reasoning at the policy page is incorrect since there is a plausible (if vain) motivation to substitute a signature which will respect length restriction and not be redundant.
There seems to have been consensus here for the change. A slient consensus at the very least, but there were three people actively involved in it, and the change was even encouraged at other noticeboards. As it stands, I would revert it back.
Amalthea 17:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A discussion between you and Xeno is hardly a "consensus". It's always been policy because substing a sig circumvents the raw signature option in My Preferences. Anything you can put in a subst can be put in a raw signature up to the character limit. In addition, ~~~~ is much faster to type out than {{User:SoAndSo/signature}}, which makes the "easier" point for substing sigs moot. I would suggest though, if you really want long standing policy to be changed, that you bring an RfC on the matter and get more input than 2 or 3 people and come to a real consensus on the issue. :] - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 18:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

actually substing signatures can do more than raw signatures...i.e...randomized colours, if statements to make different sigs for different, pages, that kinda junk. I still think we should "say" that subst'ing is disallowed (makes it easier for me to be a rouge admin and delete signature subpages of horribly gaudy signatures that violate the length restriction), and then let whoever wants that kind of stuff to ignore the rule. (FWIW Allstar , you seem to be confused above on substing vs. transcluding) –xeno (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Saying that they are disallowed was the reason for the hoopla in the first place, since ignoring it wasn't accepted by some. --Amalthea 20:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) As I said, there were three people actively involved, and it was encouraged at least at WP:AN. This change had been written in the policy for two-and-a-half months now since the reasoning behind adding the prohibition was incorrect in the first place: they are not redundant to putting the substed content in a raw signature. What you can do (and a number of people currently *are* doing just that) is have some dynamic template that will produce a different signature depending on circumstances. If such a signature template is kept at an auto-protected place (e.g. User:Amalthea/sig.css) it is under no risk of vandalism, and if I have {{subst:User:Amalthea/sig.css}} as my raw signature, this change is transparent for me and ~~~~ will work as before. Brion's performance concerns also do not apply to substitution, the only overhead is in the one-time template expansion, which is completely negligable.
None of the (good!) reasons against transcluded templates apply for substituted templates, while all general criteria (length restrictions, no parser functions) still apply to the result. Substed signatures are indistinguishable from manually changing ones signature right before one posts.
So, do you have any reason against this change except that there weren't enough people involved? --Amalthea 20:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The raw signature is there for a reason. It was never intended to be circumvented but to be THE signature. Whether it's substed or transcluded, the policy and consensus has always been to not allow it. Would you also argue that images in signatures is ok via WP:IAR? And while you say the overhead is completely negligable, I'd suggest otherwise if you had thousands of users substing or transcluding sigs 5 to 100 times a day. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 20:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:CCC. –xeno (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, consensus can change, but it hasn't anywhere I can see. In fact, the edit history shows consensus to keep the policy as every time it's been changed by someone ignoring the rules, someone else has reverted it. I think RfC would be the best bet here since this is longstanding policy and needs more community input than 3, 4 people. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 20:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any admins lining up to block people who are substing their sigs, so it's clearly "allowed" (and if it really was a performance issue, I'm sure the devs could disallow it through the software). I've reverted to the "discouraged" wording. Feel free to open an RFC, but such a minor issue hardly deserves one, imo. –xeno (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should longstanding policy to not allow transclusion and/or substitution templates for signatures continue to be the policy

Should longstanding policy to not allow transclusion and/or substitution templates for signatures continue to be the policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allstarecho (talk • contribs) 17:02, 25 March 2009

• First off, we should totally ignore the red herring of transclusion of the signature - almost no one thinks it is a good idea and this will remain policy not to allow a transcluded signature. Moving on to the substitution bit, which is hardly "long standing". It was added on 23 June 2008 (tweaked slightly), and removed 2 October 2008, re-added 20 Oct 2008, tweaked and untweaked the same day, then reversed 7 January 2009 and then finally arrived at the compromise version we have today, as discussed between myself and Amalthea above at #Signature_substitution in mid February. –xeno (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think this is fine. –xeno (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, could the RFC question be any less neutral? Anyhow, I fully support Xeno's version. --Conti|✉ 21:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • After feeding much of this debate, I concur with Xeno. We're not stupid. If we see a signature that is too long, we tell the user about it. Delete their signature page, shorten it, block as last resort. We don't need to beat some users to death for clever coding because two or three people can't stick to a limit, surely?  GARDEN  21:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
• Disclosure: I've notified Richard0612, Anomie, Shoemaker's Holiday and Cyde as I have referenced their edits in my above statement. –xeno (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• I think the current guideline is fine. ···日本穣 04:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• I also think the current guideline is fine. Arguing about this is daft. Go write an encyclopedia. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• No on transclusion. Subst I really don't care as long as the source page is protected in some manner and the output wikitext is a reasonable length and respects this guideline. Anomie⚔ 11:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Transclusion is right out, so forget about that. As for substituion, all of the reasons listed in the section just above this one regarding the "clever" things that can be done make me more inclined to say we should keep it disallowed. Randomly-colored signatures? Different signatures for different pages? Ugh. Consistency in signatures is important. --Cyde Weys 14:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Xeno's wording. Cyde, I'd think that if a user ever has a signature that varies enough to be a distraction it can still be dealt with individually. This possibility isn't enough to prohibit it completely in my eyes, even if the only use for this "feature" were to make our editors happy (which is only beneficial to the encyclopaedia as long as such bells and whistles don't dominate a user's editing).
  As mentioned, allowing transclusions was never an option. --Amalthea 16:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Just for my .02, I believe that the 255 character limit is plenty generous and that heavily customized signatures of any sort should be frowned upon in general. If it can't be done with simple wiki markup, it shouldn't be in a signature. This isn't the place to defiantly express our individuality, it's about writing an encyclopedia. That said, whether it's worth administrator time to enforce such rules is the side question, and I believe that admins have better things to do, especially when the creative signatures aren't disruptive or otherwise problematic. SDY (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• As for me, I find them more readable the shorter and simpler the signatures are. That shouldn't be the place for artistic creativity. We should be dealing with some existing ones I can think of, not permitted yet more excesses. The user page--that's another matter. DGG (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• I use a substituted signature, and I defy anyone to notice (unless they trawled through my userpages to find it.) The reason being is that I can then share my signature with my alternative account, which has the substitution with "logged on as Pek"" on the end. I've made sure that the sig itself, with the suffix, is not more than 255 characters. I can see the need to ban/discourage "clever" substitutions, or those than circumvent the 255 character rule, but there are circumstances like mine which are useful. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) (yes that's a subst) 22:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Yes That is my answer to the RFC question. Personally, I think more editors should only use the tilde method.--Rockfang (talk) 03:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• What about signatures that are less than 255 characters when substed, but are not 255 in template form? — neuro 15:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• Disallow transclusion, discourage but allow substitution - a single problematic change to a transcluded template as a sig could cause major problems. A substituted sig has the potential for a problem in case of "well-timed" vandalism. However, there are some situations where it may make sense. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment — Signatures should be ever more restricted. They are the single worst vector for bad code into the wiki. People stick all manner of low quality, invalid, and deprecated code into their sigs. I'd be all for no customization of sigs at all; just a few checkboxes to allow optional talk and contrib links of a canonical form. No color, no bold, no boxes, no superscripts; it's all attention-seeking. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Motion to close: RFC isn't my strong suit, but aren't they supposed to be closed after 30 days unless otherwise specified? –xeno 14:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Require link to usertalk page in signatures?

I propose that we require a link to a user's talk page in the signature. Comments in this closed MfD will provide some background as to the origin of this proposal. What do other folks think of this idea? LadyofShalott 03:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The current text is here:

• It is common practice to include a link to one or more of your user page, user talk page, and contributions page. At least one of those pages must be linked from your signature to allow other editors simple access to your talk page and contributions log.

Based on that MFD, the only reason I can see for such a rule would be to allow users to circumvent possibly offensive user pages. If that's the case then it'd be better to address that issue directly and forbid offensive material on user pages. The same user could copy the picture from his user page to his talk page, so just having a talk page link in his sig wouldn't really change things. Other than that, it seems like instruction creep.   Will Beback  talk  04:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Since we allow sigs without any link, there's no way this will be enforceable. --NE2 04:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Technically, the guideline requires a link. However since it's just a guideline it's hard to enforce. Obviously, this proposed addition would be just as unenforceable.   Will Beback  talk  04:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That requirement only seems to apply to non-admins. It should be noted that a non-admin with a compliant signatures get hounded as disruptive, but an admin with non-compliant signatures can get away with it as long as their bloody-mindedness lasts. DuncanHill (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

In other words, WP:NVC is a lie. Not that that's any kind of surprise. Anomie⚔ 11:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

He gets hounded from time to time, he's just stubborn. –xeno 12:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. I think I agree with NE2 Will here -- the image could just as easily be copied/moved to his talk page, so this doesn't solve anything. Matt (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you're agreeing with Will --NE2 05:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoops! How did that happen?? Well, as far as what NE2 said, although we may allow signatures without links, SineBot would pick up on it and insert a signature with a userpage/user talk page link. Matt (talk) 05:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You can opt out of SineBot, as I do (because I notice it immediately and would edit conflict with SineBot). --NE2 05:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sinebot doesn't operate on users with more than 800 edits. –xeno 12:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe establishing new rules or requirements on the community as a result of one incident is almost always A Bad Idea. –Whitehorse1 07:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support new policy I would support the creation of a policy requirement that all sigs contain at least a link to the usertalk page. DuncanHill (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• No, this will not provide a solution. If he wanted he could simply move the image to his talk, thus rendering the necessity pointless. Why disrupt established policy for one userpage?  GARDEN  10:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The necessity is in making it easier for editors to communicate with each other, and this has nothing to do with WebHamster at all. DuncanHill (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have the big "talk" tab at the top then? I really can't remember the last time someone accidentally posted to someone's userpage.  GARDEN  11:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Accidental postings to userpages are quite common, in my experience, particularly by inexperienced editors. To tell the truth the most disruptive sigs are those with no links at all, and those in hard-to-read colours. DuncanHill (talk) 11:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I stand corrected; although a quick "Are you here to leave me a message? Go to my talk page" is easier and simpler in my opinion. I do however agree with the signatures with no links, which require guesswork as to where the userpage is (like, if I remember correctly, Ottre and RHMED had). Signatures with hard to read colours are generally accidents I would hope.  GARDEN  11:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral but open to persuasion either way. I'd certainly support adding that any user who provides a link to their user page instead of their talk page must accept that some users will leave messages on the user page. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• Nah. It's not going to solve the problem: If I'd want to provoke people with nude-pictures, and I'd be eventually forced to put a link to my talk page in my sig, too.. I'd simply put the nude-picture onto my talk page. :) --Conti|✉ 12:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  Let's not try to think of this only in terms of one hamster, who claims they aren't being intentionally disruptive with the picture. If guideline mandated a usertalk sig, and then he still moved the picture onto his user talk page, well, then we know he wasn't being genuine. –xeno

  But what other problem is this going to solve? A link to the talk page is certainly a good idea, but requiring it seems over the top. There's nothing wrong with just one link to the user page, unless there's something wrong with the user page. --Conti|✉ 12:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  just to make things easier for collaboration. there's also the issue of people not providing any links at all. –xeno 13:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support, not because I don't want to see nude images, but because I typically don't want to see a userpage at all - I want to leave the person a message. I had hope this RFC would have waited for a few weeks so it didn't become polarized about the beaver issue. –xeno 12:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• Nah — Sigs identify users, and that's rather the idea with user pages. Talk pages are for talking, which is only one option. Jack Merridew 16:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support with a ban on images on user talk pages. There is no reason for an image to be there unless it is part of the discussion. That way nobody gets offended. They get to talk to a user without seeing potentially offensive images, and we should make it policy too, to avoid battles over how to enforce guidelines. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• Do not require link It would make far more sense to not require a link. This is instruction creep in that it addresses what is only the illusion of a problem. That MfD was a tempest in a teacup. Chillum 17:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  I don't quite understand what you mean by it would make to "more sense to not require a link" ? And I would again ask people to judge this question on its own merits, not whether or not you think it's ok to show vag on a userpage or whether it is indeed an illusion of a problem. It's been unfortunately framed as a solution to that particular problem. –xeno 17:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• What if the image in question is on the talk page? There is a rule that requires linking to it. It would make far more sense to require that a link in a sig does not point to potentially shocking/offensive material. I really don't think it is a good idea to change policy based on one event that got blown out of proportion. Chillum 17:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, which is why I'm trying to avoid us conflating this issue. It is not only WebHamster who is (disruptively or otherwise) not providing a link to their talk page. –xeno 17:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• So this is just about a quick link to the talk page? The history button will give you that. I don't think people need to put links in their signatures, I don't see a problem with people having to do an extra click to find someone. I used a linkless signature for months once and it caused no problem. Chillum 17:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That's all well and good if you're ok forcing people to jump through hoops, or view vaginas, to get to their talk page. Not sure why people feel the need to aggravate their fellow editors in such a fashion. –xeno 17:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• The history page provides a direct link to the talk page of a user. No hoops, no user page, just talk page. If talk page content is truly inappropriate it can be removed, the image you are referring to was hardly explicit and there was no vag visible. I think if the girl was spread eagle then the result of the MfD would have been different. Chillum 17:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• There was a little slice... =] iirc. –xeno 18:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• That is not Vagina, that is a sliver of the top of the Pubic mound. The former is a fibromuscular tubular tract leading from the uterus to the exterior of the body in female the latter is the fatty tissue lying above the pubic bone of adult women. A common misconception. Chillum 18:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Colloquial usage =) –xeno 18:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Questions on the appropriateness of celebrating the lack of bush, with visual aids, on your doorstep, are kind of thrilling, but I don’t see the relevance of the recent MfD to this proposal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The user with such a page has a link only to that page (not his talk page) in his signature. The confluence of a userpage that looks like that with a signature that routed people who might otherwise have gone directly to the talkpage there led to both questions of appropriateness of the page (hence the mfd) and this proposal. If your question was rhetorical, oh well. LadyofShalott 00:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that your proposal is a serious, but the degree of tempest over the image has me wondering of the user had been substituting the image with his signature. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. If a user has something on their user page that they know to be offensive, and you force them to add a link to their talk page in their sig, they'll just add the offensive material to their talk page as well. Besides, is this really that big of a problem? --Kbdank71 17:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as instruction creep. Not every possible eventuality can or should be covered by policy. henrik•talk 17:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose a nice thought, but not practical and nearly impossible to enforce. Bastique 18:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  In what sense is it (i) not practical, or (ii) impossible to enforce? It would seem pretty easy to enforce to me... Robofish (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Policies and guidelines should not be for this sort of minutiae. We don't need to require all good ideas.--Tznkai (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support requesting that all signatures link to a watched talk page, and encourage linking to a userpage providing introductory information about the user. This is in the interests of reducing barriers to newcomers, even not-yet-edited wikipedians. The common implicit assumption that all important editors know each other, and know what’s going on, is something that makes initial involvement more difficult. This may not be so important in places like this page, but is important in places like article talk pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support per xeno above. This has nothing whatsoever to do with images on userpages - it's to do with convenience. When I see a user's signature after a comment, I would like to be able to go to their talk page to reply in one click. Yeah, two clicks is not exactly a taxing ordeal, but why not just require everyone to link to their talk page in the first place? I can't see any good reason not to do it (and, as noted above, it would also help prevent users adding comments to user pages by mistake). Robofish (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support the image issue is irrelevant. User signatures should contain any easy way to talk to the user. I personally find it annoying not to be able to "talk" to any user without going through multiple pages/typing it is manually. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: so the upshot appears to be that a link to at least one of: user page, user talk, or user contributions is required in every signature. So how are users who refuse to provide such links (and have signatures that aren't the same as their user name to boot) dealt with? Exploding Boy (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I don't see consensus based on arguments that a link must be included. Note that I'm not voting in this comment. Arguments against include: instruction creep, un-enforceability, guideline rather than policy, guideline for one case only, and so on. As to head counts: nine opposes, six supports, one neutral. Even if there was consensus, this is a guideline, not policy. More importantly, we don't change guideline language (see here) when (1) there is an ongoing RfC (or any other process) in which the meaning of said language in in question, and there are questions and debate about the applicability of this guideline (per the language at the time). And (2) there is no consensus as to such changes as a reaction to User:Docu and his RfC. In other words, no ex post facto changes. The guideline language needs to be reverted back to the pre-RfC version. — Becksguy (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing substantive changed - some flowery language was removed. It's also unrelated to the above RFC which I agree didn't carry. It just says at least one link must be provided, which is exactly what it said before. –xeno 20:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Support per Xeno. There should not be roadblocks to contacting a user. Every editor should have a way to communicate them in their signature. In WebHamster's case, he said he doesn't put his talk in his sig because he doesn't want to hear from anyone. That's unacceptable. Enigma 23:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  FWIW WH eventually added the link. –xeno 01:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Five-tilde transclusion

On a few wikia wiki's we sometimes use Textbox's for comments. I've been trying to get use the five-tilde version of the signature as a timestamp, but I can't get it to be substituted into the comment and not the template itself. See here. Basically, I want the template to automatically run the ~~~~~ code when the template is used, without me having to actually type in the tildes when I make a comment. Can anyone help me with this?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that depends on how you use the template. In the end, the page you place the template on will of course need to contain the plain timestamp. There's two ways you can do that, either by placing {{sometemplate|~~~~~}}, or by hiding the timestamp tildes in a template which you then substitute into a page, e.g. {{subst:sometemplate}}.
If you place it in a template you'll need to disguise it a bit so that it isn't substituted right away when you save the template. Try using "~~<includeonly></includeonly>~<includeonly></includeonly>~~". But again, that template will need to be substituted, else you will just see five tildes. Amalthea 10:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Signature Sandbox

Shouldn't Misplaced Pages have a sandbox where users can see what their signature looks like? 75.66.180.12 (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The regular sandbox works just fine - just sign an edit there and viola. Shereth 17:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent sig-related RFC closed

See for the closing admin's remarks. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Signatures must include at least one internal link, elevation to policy?

I feel I need to draw further attention to this instead of discussing it in edit summaries. Specifically I have reverted this edit and this edit as I do not believe the reflect consensus. I would like to request people give their opinions on these ideas. The previous discussion on this matter, Misplaced Pages talk:Signatures#Require link to usertalk page in signatures?, did not seem to come to a consensus in support of making this mandatory, much less something to block over. Chillum 02:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record I do not object to the wording:

"While this is merely a guideline, signature use that is disruptive may lead to blocking under other Misplaced Pages policies."

This is obviously true in a wider context, however I do think placing it in the "Internal links" section seems to give the impression that not providing such a link is so disruptive so as to warrant a block. Chillum 02:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That particular section attempted to mandate a user talk link. The more recent RFC held that at least one link (doesn't matter which one) is a requirement. See below section, we seem to have been posting at the same time. –xeno 02:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

On July 25th, Pmanderson (talk · contribs) made changes to the guideline page that seem not to reflect community opinion on signatures; i.e. that they must have at least one link. (Note, this if different than the above section that attempted to mandate a talk page link.) Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Docu had wide community support that at least one link was required and to intentionally sign without providing a link was disruptive and thus subject to blocking. There was also a suggestion that this guideline be to elevated to policy. Thoughts? –xeno 02:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see consensus confirmed here instead of basing a guideline on an RFC about a specific person. It is often a bad idea to make policy decisions based on a single event. The last time this was proposed there was no consensus for it. Chillum 02:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I still think you're misreading things. The last proposal was to mandate a link to the user talk page. At least one link was always required, we were trying to mandate a link to user talk pages, because someone had a ... somewhat riske photo ... on their user page and didn't have a user talk link. Also note the July 25th change are the ones trying to change the status quo, so they have the burden of proof here. I think the Docu RFC is enough, but if you think another signature RFC is required, please feel free. We do need to sort out the issue of guideline vs. policy. –xeno 02:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this edit. No we don't need a signature RFC, just a simple talk page discussion. Chillum 03:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I still think the community has held that at least one link is necessary (the Docu thing was widely trafficked), but yea, I can't really be arsed to file an RFC over it. –xeno 03:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is abundantly clear, and I see no reason why this should not be reflected in policy (let alone a guideline). There simply is no valid reason to have a link-free signature, period.
Also, the term "merely a guideline" should not be used in any formal context, as it falsely conveys that guidelines are lesser rules that editors are free to ignore whenever they please. —David Levy 03:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right, of course. Unfortunately though, that seems to be how some users view guidelines (eg). –xeno 03:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that. Quite a troubling misunderstanding.

Incidentally, I experienced an edit conflict when attempting to perform almost exactly the same edit as this; I removed the text "while this is merely a guideline" and relocated the statement to that location. (The only difference is that I didn't tweak the link's piping.) So obviously, I endorse the change.  :-) —David Levy 03:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• FWIW, I support a requirement strong advisement of a link to either the user page, or the talk page. — Ched :  ?  19:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• I think this is merely common sense and long overdue. --Conti|✉ 19:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• While I strongly disagree with the consensus that forced Docu to change his signature, it is consensus nonetheless. There was an obvious majority that feels at least a single link should show up in a user's signature. While the RfC was about a single user, it is unproductive to try and state that this same expectation should not be extended (via this guideline) to the remainder of the users at large. It does make abundant sense that the wording here be changed to reflect the consensus reached in that discussion. Shereth 19:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be fully in favour of this guideline to become policy, and will state as much at and RfC that comes of it. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I personally strongly object to the alteration of the guideline statement on links, which absolutely reflected consensus as previously worded (see for instance the long discussion and RFC on just this matter here) and strongly support the proposed elevation to policy. In the meantime I urge Chillum to undo his edits as it's clear they're not representative of current consensus on the matter. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification folks, I think it could have been done with less jaw-dropping but whatever. I am off to some other part of Misplaced Pages. Chillum 23:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Recently yet another user has used an entirely unlinked signature and when questioned opined that doing so was acceptable because WP:SIG is just a guideline and not a policy. How much longer will this type of thing be allowed to continue before we make the move of making this policy? Exploding Boy (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, have no problem blocking an editor for intentionally and persistently signing in a disruptive manner. I don't understand the "oh, well its only a guideline, so we can't enforce it" mindset. Nevertheless, I support the elevation to policy based on the support it received at the recent RFC. –xeno 16:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Editnotice update

I have no idea why this page attracts so many misplaced questions and apparent article content. I have an updated version of the editnotice at User:Gadget850/Sandbox2 that might help a bit. Please review and comment. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  13:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I too am totally puzzled as to why this page is so often used for the wrong purposes. I applaud your attempt to improve matters. The proposed new version may perhaps reduce the nimber of "how can I change my signature" type queries. However, I am not sure that it will help with the astonishingly common practice of posting quetions which have nothing to do with signatures: if people don't notice or ignore the old one I see nothing in the new one which would stop people doing likewise. I suppose it is just conceivable that the new colour scheme might make it more eye-catching, but I'm not sure. It will be interesting to see if anyone else has any comments. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Every time I have reverted a misplaced discussion here, I have added a welcome to the user's page. I looked back at the contributions for those users, and I see only the single edit. I don't get it. I'm hoping that not only the color might help, but they will also have to scroll down the page to get to the edit box. It won't be a cure-all, but it can't hurt. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  12:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  20:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree it can't hurt, and we may as well try it. So far it has not stopped PinkJerseyGirl93 posting nonsense here, but we will see how things continue. However, as far as I am concerned the minor trouble involved in periodically deleting inappropriate matter is not a big deal; I am more interested in the question why on earth does it happen so much here? It doesn't seem to happen anything like so much on other project-page talk pages, so why should so many people be attracted here for this purpose? Is there some inappropriate link to here from somewhere? Or is it one vandal who keeps creating throw-away accounts to do this? Or what? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Signatures w/o Login

The page doesn't (that I can see) offer guidance for those who don't have an account, but could at least mark an entry with their name, ideally while triggering automatic time-stamping (and perhaps some record of IP address). I realise the anointed would rather we all just got accounts, but I so seldom actually say anything here that keeping track of account details isn't worth the hassle. So would it be possible to have some simple idiom for doing that ? -- Eddy, 15:33ish, 30th August 2009 (UTC).

That would be SineBot. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  15:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If you end a post with ~~~~, it will substitute that for your IP address (if not logged in) with relevant links, and a timestamp. Pretty sure that's covered on the page.

Sinebot and the like

Is it just me, or is Sinebot occasionally more troublesome than helpful? It often signs unsigned vandalism to talk pages before anyone can revert, eliminating the possibility of using the rollback button. Powers 12:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times (search for word "vandal" on User talk:SineBot/Archive 1 to find several discussions). The bot does wait 2 minutes before signing. So unless you can suggest some new solution... — AlexSm 15:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Meh, it's irritating when it happens, but it's as easy to fix as Diff->Previous revision->"Restore this version" on the origin side (with twinkle). --King Öomie 15:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Invalid links in signatures - MediaWiki 1.15.1

I just realized that ~~~~ is creating links to SomeUserName and not User:SomeUserName. Is this a known MediaWiki bug? Is there a fix and/or workaround? Timneu22 (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

For example? Perhaps someone set their signature improperly. –xeno 14:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

For example nothing... they just do a regular ~~~~, and it creates a link to SomeUserName. They certainly haven't set their signature wrong, because this happens for dozens of users. They haven't even updated their preferences to have a different signature. This is really a pressing issue because it is creating all sorts of "pages wanted"! Timneu22 (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Forbid "text-shadow" in signatures

Hi there. Recently, a growing number of editors use the CSS attribute "text-shadow" to make their signatures appear like this. I do not want to sound like a grumpy old man but I think using this attribute makes signatures harder to read (especially if combined with color like so) and leads to those signatures giving undue prominence to their users. As such, they have almost the same effect as images would have, if they were permitted. While I understand the fascination to play with a new feature like that, I think it would be wise to ask people to play with it elsewhere to not make discussion pages any harder to read than necessary. Regards SoWhy 14:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Weakish support. Isn't there some css code one can use to prevent seeing these though? –xeno 14:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Doesn't show up if you use IE :). I see xeno has asked Amalthea‎ about the css code, and that would be the best way to prevent this imo - Kingpin (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• (ec) Hmm, adding

  * {text-shadow: none !important;}
  

  to your skin css should work (just tested it by executing javascript:void(appendCSS("* {text-shadow: none !important;}")); in my address bar).Amalthea 14:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Works great, cheers! –xeno 14:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't believe you're going far enough. I think we should forbid the use of different colors, fonts, and sizes in signatures. The extra markup clutters discussion pages, and the nonstandard signature format often leads to terrible examples of mystery meat navigation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What is it all about? I'm on Firefox 3.0.14, Win XP and it's just plain text. Where's the catch? What do you see? NVO (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"text-shadow" is a CSS 3 attribute that only shows up in new browsers (like Firefox 3.5). As for Amalthea's suggestion, it is elegant to allow people to disable it but it will not help those people who have not set such personal CSS files. Regards SoWhy 14:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

To answer the actual question, I see (on Konqueror 4.2.2) a "shadow" of the text just down and to the right. And it is particularly illegible in the colored example. I've always thought fancy signatures are silly and harder to deal with; I'd prefer it if everyone just used the default. Ntsimp (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd add the exclusion to monobook.css. We shouldn't permit sig customisation which substantially disrupts talk pages by making sigs too hard to read/use. Rd232 16:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If we did that, people wouldn't be able to use text-shadows to prettify their userpages though... –xeno 16:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, someone will surely start using

<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em !important">like this</span>

then, which has a higher specitivity and overrules the monobook declaration, like this.
In general, I agree that the shadows are gruesome. I hope it's going to go out of style by itself, once the novelty wears off. Wouldn't mind explicitly discouraging it here, but there are a lot of things in signatures I don't like. One would think that common sense should be enough to make editors not use them, but alas, ... Amalthea 17:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Amalthea is correct, the mononbook.css fix can be circumvented and people tend to use annoying signatures, true. So we should discourage using them via guideline. I would go further and also discourage using background color or colors like this in signatures but I am afraid we will not be able to gather consensus for that. I do not think we should forbid/disable personal sigs completely, they are quite useful to distinguish people easily but I think some people simply overdo it (and I'm afraid this includes multiple admins and experienced users). Regards SoWhy 20:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

How about something like this? The shadow color has been toned down so the text remains easily readable. It's possible also from the dev end to disallow !important when the software converts ~~~~ to the signature, isn't it?

I really don't see it as much of an issue. Some signatures are just ridiculous, but if anything needs to go, it's rainbow signatures, with every letter a different color. Talk about a chunk of markup in the edit frame. --King Öomie 21:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Look up "enumerating badness" sometime to see why this is a bad idea. We can't make a comprehensive list of all specific bad things people can do with their signatures, so why try? Rather, we should have a guideline along the lines of "signatures must be readable". --Carnildo (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can think of some other use for !important keyword in the signature, I think anybody using it should be warned and then blocked for deliberately disruptive behaviour (since the only intention is to cause inconvenience to fellow editors). — AlexSm 21:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I certainly can't. I haven't seen it abused (yet), but I strongly advocate disabling it in software when in a signature. --King Öomie 15:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for the banning of shadows, backgrounds, !important, etc. It may be because I'm another grumpy old editor, but it seems to me that fancy signatures are much more common now than they used to be (another factor could be that I've spent a lot of time at Wiktionary which takes a very much tougher line on what is acceptable in signatures). Also, I think we need to somehow raise the profile of the signature guidelines somewhat - just today I've had to ask an experienced user to stop their signature from blinking. They did so, but stated that they didn't know there was any restriction on signatures. I can't think of how to actually make it better known though. Thryduulf (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

How about lowering the 255 character limit to 32 characters or something like that. Or disallow markup in signatures completely. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I can. The Signature section in Preferences needs to link to this guideline. That way, any user attempting to change their sig is at least aware there's a policy. In fact, this is going to WP:VPR now. --King Öomie 22:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

And it's done. --King Öomie 13:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Agree - the text shadows in signatures draw the eye away from the rest of the text. It is an affront to decent people everywhere. Also, I think colors should be limited or banned, as well.--Blargh29 (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Agree, some of those signatures are quite hard to read. I came across one today where the depth of the shadow was about 2x the amount usually seen and it was just ridiculous. Cutesey visual effects in sigs are just a useless distraction and there's no reason to allow them to annoy the wider editor population. Editors seeking venues for artistic self-expression can always try Myspace. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Signature icon

The signature icon is used in a number of guidelines and templates. The enhanced toolbar uses a different icon at . We should copy it to File and show it as an alternative where the original icon is used. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  09:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Substituting signature templates

The guideline indicates that "substitution of templates in signatures is discouraged...", which I support in general, but I'm wondering whether that applies to substitution of signature templates that are already on talk pages. Once signature templates have been posted, should they not be substed? Thanks, –BLACK FALCON 17:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Signature templates shouldn't be used at all. Particularly unsubst'd, they're extremely vulnerable to vandalism (adding profanity to every page you've ever signed), and some bots have trouble parsing them when archiving pages. --King Öomie 15:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If someone already used a non-subst'ed templte as a signature, yes, they should be subst'ed. The guideline is meant to discourage fanciful substituted sigs that typically exceed the length requirement, change colour every hour, have random sayings, etc. –xeno 15:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. –BLACK FALCON 18:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Help NEEDED with Editing An Article

Hello,

I I have created an article "Nachkam/Mahamane Kalil Maiga". I have spent hours trying to understand how to edit it but I am not understanding the process.

I have entered the text, references and links using the Article Wizard. Can someone help me edit the article to make it look structured?

Also, how can I add an image to my article?

Thanks!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nachkam (talk • contribs)

This is not the right place to ask for assistance. Try the WP:HELPDESK. Powers 01:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

ok bye

Neighbors Moving and Storage

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD Neighbors Moving & Storage has been family-owned and operated since 1939. In that time we have been committed to providing the highest quality of customer service. Neighbors Moving and Storage specializes in local and long-distance moving, both residential and commercial. We also provide professional packing services, secured short and long term storage and a variety of moving supplies.

Call 954-861-2961 1-800-431-1939

At Neighbors Moving & Storage, our experienced and friendly relocation specialists work with you, your family or business to ensure every detail is covered. It's the attention to detail that has made your friends and family recommend Neighbors Moving & Storage for over 60 years.

Professional, uniformed Neighbors personnel are clean, courteous and efficient. Our brightly painted trucks are equipped to adequately service all of your moving needs. All of your furniture and possessions are fully padded with thick mover's pads for extra protection. The items are then carefully and professionally packed in a Neighbors moving truck in a manner that best protects your possessions.

Neighbors Moving & Storage enjoys an excellent reputation for honesty, integrity and quality. Whether you're moving across the street, across town or across the country, Neighbors Moving & Storage will be there from start to finish.

We invite you to join our growing number of repeat and referral customers, and see why Neighbors Moving & Storage is one of the top-rated moving and storage companies in America.

Servicing Areas:

Seattle Moving Company Miami Mover Ft Lauderdale Moving Company Pompano Mover

Orlando Moving Company Denver Mover Boston Moving Company Jacksonville Mover West Palm Beach Moving Company

http://www.neighborsmoving.com/