| Revision as of 04:45, 1 June 2006 editChcknwnm (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,757 edits →Speedy delete?: comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:48, 1 June 2006 edit undoTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →Exploding Boy's Summary: The signatures play only one part in communication: identification of the author and the date and time of the comment.Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == Exploding Boy's Summary == | == Exploding Boy's Summary == | ||
| Reagrding the non-Latin characters, then why aren't they removed from the actual article namespace in articles like ], ], and ]. ]]]<sup>] |
Reagrding the non-Latin characters, then why aren't they removed from the actual article namespace in articles like ], ], and ]. ] 02:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::Because they are in almost all cases preceded by the English version or transliteration, and because a reader can expect to encounter some foreign characters in articles on certain subjects. Signatures that do not display correctly, however, can be an impediment to identifying or referring to a given user, as well as to editing talk pages and responding to posts. ] 02:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC) | ::Because they are in almost all cases preceded by the English version or transliteration, and because a reader can expect to encounter some foreign characters in articles on certain subjects. Signatures that do not display correctly, however, can be an impediment to identifying or referring to a given user, as well as to editing talk pages and responding to posts. ] 02:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::In my signature, I have Korean charcters. Without them, I can still be identified, as 'Chuck' is still there. When foreign characters don't render, they appear as blocks, and don't interfer with editing or responding that I know of. I don't think that it matters whether or not it is a foreign subject article, or a user signature, as users can be of forein heritage and/or have completely foreign names. ]]]<sup>] |
:::In my signature, I have Korean charcters. Without them, I can still be identified, as 'Chuck' is still there. When foreign characters don't render, they appear as blocks, and don't interfer with editing or responding that I know of. I don't think that it matters whether or not it is a foreign subject article, or a user signature, as users can be of forein heritage and/or have completely foreign names. ] 02:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Also, in regards to your #1, that it was Tony's talk page and therefore more than reasonable: It is a Misplaced Pages page, not Tony's. The purpose of ] is for members of the Misplaced Pages community to be able to communicate with Tony. Tony is open to archiving the page, deleting comments that have been responded to, but not to alter others people's comments. ]]]<sup>] |
Also, in regards to your #1, that it was Tony's talk page and therefore more than reasonable: It is a Misplaced Pages page, not Tony's. The purpose of ] is for members of the Misplaced Pages community to be able to communicate with Tony. Tony is open to archiving the page, deleting comments that have been responded to, but not to alter others people's comments. ] 03:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| : Well the key is ''communication''. This is better facilitated by improving the signal-to-noise ratio of the page: viz, editing the more ridiculous signatures to something less intrusive. The signatures play only one part in communication: identification of the author and the date and time of the comment. None of the other stuff plays any part of the communication, but is merely vanity on the part of the editor. When that gets in the way, of course it should be freely refactored. --] 04:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Speedy delete? == | == Speedy delete? == | ||
Revision as of 04:48, 1 June 2006
Exploding Boy's Summary
Reagrding the non-Latin characters, then why aren't they removed from the actual article namespace in articles like Wang Chong, Korea, and Japanese language. Chcknwnm 02:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Because they are in almost all cases preceded by the English version or transliteration, and because a reader can expect to encounter some foreign characters in articles on certain subjects. Signatures that do not display correctly, however, can be an impediment to identifying or referring to a given user, as well as to editing talk pages and responding to posts. Exploding Boy 02:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- In my signature, I have Korean charcters. Without them, I can still be identified, as 'Chuck' is still there. When foreign characters don't render, they appear as blocks, and don't interfer with editing or responding that I know of. I don't think that it matters whether or not it is a foreign subject article, or a user signature, as users can be of forein heritage and/or have completely foreign names. Chcknwnm 02:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, in regards to your #1, that it was Tony's talk page and therefore more than reasonable: It is a Misplaced Pages page, not Tony's. The purpose of User talk:Tony Sidaway is for members of the Misplaced Pages community to be able to communicate with Tony. Tony is open to archiving the page, deleting comments that have been responded to, but not to alter others people's comments. Chcknwnm 03:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well the key is communication. This is better facilitated by improving the signal-to-noise ratio of the page: viz, editing the more ridiculous signatures to something less intrusive. The signatures play only one part in communication: identification of the author and the date and time of the comment. None of the other stuff plays any part of the communication, but is merely vanity on the part of the editor. When that gets in the way, of course it should be freely refactored. --Tony Sidaway 04:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete?
Err, speedy delete? Why? Friday (talk) 04:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Good question. I put the hang on tag while I went to see what G1 was. It says, "Patent nonsense, i.e. no meaningful content, unsalvageably incoherent page. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, badly translated material, implausible theories or hoaxes." I don't see that here. Maybe Tawker could explain. Thanks, Chuck 04:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Talked to Tawker. Was an honest mistake. Chuck 04:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)