![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Undated comments should be legitimate. First, Wikimedia supports them itself with the three-tilde macro, second, they expose more working hour habits than is necessary to any purpose and nice to privacy. Of course you can always look up a date from the history, but having it readily available in the current document only makes it easier for automatic harvesting. Please be respectful of contributor's choices in this case and do not run bots which automatically date undated comments. -- lynX ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Why on earth are manual signatures even an issue? Why doesn't the software simply handle (and enforce) this? If I add a comment without a sig I see a little blurb added that I (it indicates my user name) added a comment without a sig. If it can do that why can't it simply insert and enforce the sigs in the first place without anyone having to even think about it? -- Ericjs 22:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Editors watching this page might be interested in the following proposal: User signatures should link to both the user page and user talk page by default. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 22:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Now, what is the code to generate such a time? I am referring to this:
21:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
How do you do that without having to type your signature as well? And can you use it on other Wikipedias? Uncle Montezuma 21:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
we should be allowed to use <br/> tags at the beginning of our signatures to ensure that long signatures won't break, and those with <sup></sup>, <sub></sub> etc. won't disrupt surrounding text. This seems reasonable to me. Thinboy00 talk/ contribs 19:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see this in the archives, so sorry if this has been mentioned. But my signature has the link to my user page as "[[User:DragonHawk|]]". Note the bare pipe at the end. That is rendered as follows: " DragonHawk". It is a MediaWiki feature that a bare pipe gets interpreted as "drop all the qualification stuff from display". So explicitly specifying my user name, as in "[[User:DragonHawk|DragonHawk]]", is redundant, and (I feel) clutters the source wiki text of a talk page needlessly. That's why I made my sig that way. But here's the weird part: When MediaWiki actually copies my signature into a talk page, it fills in the actual text on the right side of the pipe, turning my bare pipe into the redundant version. Anyone know if there's a reason for this? Is it just a quirk/bug? — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 20:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused, this page doesn't actually tell me how to change my sig, I mean how do I change the font/color? Is there another page for that? THANKS! Legotech ( talk) 00:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The Internal links section of this rules now states that "the default signature links to the user page. At least one of those two pages must be linked from your signature, to allow other editors simple access to your talk page and contributions log".
But the older version of the rules does not have such a clause. This modification (16 July 2007) was made by User:Quiddity, but it's not trivial to find out the reason. So, why do we need such a requirement?
The concern expressed here that 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" may be easily objected.
I'm really tired of seeing stupid signatures like JI MM Y WHA LES. All I want is a link to their userpage and perhaps their talk page, in the same format as everyone else. Is there anything I can do about this? -- Henry W. Schmitt ( talk) 21:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It says in the External Links section that external links are not allowed. But it is focusing on promoting your website, and it might get search engines to look there, etc. But what about to the Toolserver? I would think that would be exempt, but I am not sure. Soxred93 | talk count bot 00:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
tools:
/
AlexSm
19:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Hi everyone! :-)
Just a single question here as I'm trying to customise my signature to display both my user page and talk links, plus the date in a customised format. So far, getting the user and talk page links working was very easy - Standard WikiCode, no problem. :-)
However, as someone who uses the British method of writing the date (DD/MM/YYYY as opposed to MM/DD/YYYY or YYYY/MM/DD) and labels all of his Gregorian dates as Common Era, I've found that although I can add the date and time into my signature itself, Wikipedia keeps sticking the UTC date in after it which leads to an undesirable result, and me having to type my signature into talk pages by hand insted of using the four-tilde method.
Is there any way that I can disable the adding of the date to the end of my signature, mayhap with a tag in my raw signature box or something? My current code (In full) is as follows:
Which is intended to produce something like:
...But produces something more like:
If anyone knows how to prevent Wikipedia adding the date in this way (Or at least customising the way the date is displayed with my signature without having to enter it manually every time!) then please leave a note or overview on my talk page. Many thanks in advance for any help! :-)
Hyperspeed ( Talk) - 13 February 2008 CE 01:22 UTC
Hi, I decided to use color in my signature. I was trying to find a slightly darker shade of orange to use in the second part. Can anyone help? Also, the gigantic tag on top of this page seems rather unnecessary. I would think that people would realize the signatures talk page is for signatures. Thanks, Enigma msg! 20:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
<font color="#ff7700">Orange</font>
Tneumark (talk) date_time_info_here
Tneumark date_time_info_here
Is there a setting or something that makes the "(talk)" section display? Is there a better place to ask this question? Timneu22 ( talk) 21:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Instead of having to manually put four tildas at the end of all your posts, your signature should just be added automatically (which it is, albeit when it's automatic it notes that the comment was initially unsigned). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumarine ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree totallyyy!!! <3!!! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.164.96.75 (
talk)
22:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I want to write a template which includes ~~~~. When this template is used, tilda's should be rendered. By default tilda's are replaced when I create the template and when template is used I see the signature of the template creater (instead of template user). Is there any way to do that? -- iyigun ( talk) 14:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
well no not really maybe you could try to lik do something about it but i really dont understand what you are trying to say maybe you should put it in a less complicated way then you could probably get some help thanks hun!!♥♥ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malonmartin ( talk • contribs) 22:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
IP 124.168.215.205 is making comments in talk pages, and not only doesn't he/she sign, but she uses the !nosign! edit summary to prevent SineBot from fixing it. Should the IP's wish to not ever have a sig be respected? Or should I go ahead and add unsigned templates to his/her comments?
I am assuming this is some misguided attempt at privacy, but since everyone can see the IP in the revision history anyway, I just don't see any point to it... -- Jaysweet ( talk) 14:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't imagine this comes up that frequently, but just in case, I propose adding the following section to WP:SIG:
(begin proposed new section)
Signing posts on Talk pages is mandatory, as failure to do so interferes with the operation of various archival bots, as well as making it extremely difficult (if not impossible) to follow the flow of a conversation. In general, though, a user should not be blocked even for repeated failure to sign their posts, as it is a common mistake and is usually not particularly disruptive due to the fact that another user or bot can simply add an appropriate signature later.
An exception would be if a user repeatedly abused the !nosign! edit summary and/or removed the {{unsigned}} template added by other users. That behavior is not acceptable, and the offending user should be warned as such, with the possibility of an eventual block if the errant behavior continues.
(end proposed new section)
Comments? Is it overkill? This is the first time I've ever seen this happen, but I was sort of at a loss as to what to do... -- Jaysweet ( talk) 15:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec)
Suppose I wanted to put a link in my signature that would be directed to an internal page like AGFC. Would that be allowed? Discouraged?-- Filll ( talk) 16:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
this part is full of flaws. no need to be re-cached as they are substed so they don't get updated! – ThatWikiGuy ( talk | life | I feel like I'm being watched) 00:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear Sir, I Thanks for your valuable response and guidance. The question putup by me has not been understood in correct sense. I am intrested to know that the B Sc. Agriculture degree awarded by Birbahadur Singh Purvanchl Viswavidyalya, Jaun Pur UP. India is science stream or Arts stream. Some says it is Arts stream and some say that it belongs to science stream. How is the classification of courses carried out in universities in UP. Is there any governining body which desids the classification. Is there any Government order regarding the classification. The university does not respond to email. Please provide the Web address of the sites which may be usefull in resolving this issue.
Thanking You, Yours sincearly, Satish Chandra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.179.127 ( talk) 13:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
BRUSHLESS EXCITATION
dear sir, i logged on to your web site with the hope of getting information regarding BRUSHLESS EXCITATION SYSTEM, which are now commonly used in synchronous generators. this page couldn't be of much help to me. insted of focussing on the cost and effeciency, your focus should be extended to: the principle of operation, construction and design of the machine as well. as a student i'll be more interested in the above mentioned spheres. thank you constant visitor
This page seems to attract loads of spam for some reason. What am I missing here? Enigma message 22:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
If the templates are not acceptable but is the user template ok? Electrical Vandilize Me 19:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
If the templates are not acceptable but is the user template ok? Electrical Vandilize Me 19:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Can someone tell me in simple step-by-step terms as to how to change my sig color, size, etc.? Thanks Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 21:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
This page seems to attract loads of spam for some reason. What am I missing here? Enigma message 22:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there any obvious reason why new code can't eventually be added so that all talk page edits by logged-in users are automatically signed? Four tildes isn't a huge hassle except for those of us with shoddy memories... Seb144 ( talk) 09:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC) <-- I remembered!
does this now happen? i got to this page because i forgot to sign my last post and it magically popped up 'Preceding unsigned comment added by 34.345.34.40....' i'll check by not signing this one... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.137.87 ( talk) 23:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
It states on the page that using a template for a signature is forbidden, with the main reason given as that it is subject to vandalism. If I have my signature template protected, so that no vandalism can occur on it, will it be permitted then? -- fone 4 me 10:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't see the point. When I was too ignorant to sign my post, the following text was appended: "—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jqavins (talk • contribs) 01:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)".
When I edited my post, adding ~~~~ at the end, this was changed to "Joe Avins (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)". So, it has my name instead of my username. If the statement that the comment was unsigned had not been present, there would be no difference of note at all! My username is as good as my name; who cares?
Okay, so it's considered good etiquette to sign each post. So I'll sign each post. But really, what's the point? Joe Avins ( talk) 23:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks bot for signing this :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.35.146 ( talk) 21:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I made wp:unsigned redirect to the Dealing with unsigned comments section, if that's okay. -- WikiWes77 ( talk) 03:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
This page says "if you must use color...". What about the advantage of using colour - that your signature is easier to pick out among others, so it is easier to follow who said what? Richard001 ( talk) 08:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In a recent WP:AN discussion it became clear that there are no real guidelines on acceptable (or unacceptable) signatures. There is also no defined process for dealing with an inappropriate signature. It has been suggested that WP:SIG contain language on proper signatures (probably similar to WP:USER NAME and include a resolution process for violations. At this point I would like to suggest we make a list of blatantly inappropriate signatures and see if we can use that list to write some guidelines. Gtstricky Talk or C 19:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
subhead added and thread split/refactored by -- Quiddity ( talk) at 04:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
subhead added by User:Docu at 06:12, 2008 September 18 (UTC)
A somewhat recent change was made following a brief discussion: 1 noting problems like "The user's sig does not link to either their user or talk page and their actual user name is not reflected in the sig, instead there is only a nonexistent pseudonym" and 2 noting "both using a sig with non-standard form of their user name (or bearing no relation at all to their user id, indeed), and with no link, which would be a recipe for untold consternation.". I think this describes well problematic signatures and we should fine tune the current guideline accordingly. -- User:Docu
subhead added by -- Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Undated comments should be legitimate. First, Wikimedia supports them itself with the three-tilde macro, second, they expose more working hour habits than is necessary to any purpose and nice to privacy. Of course you can always look up a date from the history, but having it readily available in the current document only makes it easier for automatic harvesting. Please be respectful of contributor's choices in this case and do not run bots which automatically date undated comments. -- lynX ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Why on earth are manual signatures even an issue? Why doesn't the software simply handle (and enforce) this? If I add a comment without a sig I see a little blurb added that I (it indicates my user name) added a comment without a sig. If it can do that why can't it simply insert and enforce the sigs in the first place without anyone having to even think about it? -- Ericjs 22:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Editors watching this page might be interested in the following proposal: User signatures should link to both the user page and user talk page by default. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 22:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Now, what is the code to generate such a time? I am referring to this:
21:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
How do you do that without having to type your signature as well? And can you use it on other Wikipedias? Uncle Montezuma 21:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
we should be allowed to use <br/> tags at the beginning of our signatures to ensure that long signatures won't break, and those with <sup></sup>, <sub></sub> etc. won't disrupt surrounding text. This seems reasonable to me. Thinboy00 talk/ contribs 19:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see this in the archives, so sorry if this has been mentioned. But my signature has the link to my user page as "[[User:DragonHawk|]]". Note the bare pipe at the end. That is rendered as follows: " DragonHawk". It is a MediaWiki feature that a bare pipe gets interpreted as "drop all the qualification stuff from display". So explicitly specifying my user name, as in "[[User:DragonHawk|DragonHawk]]", is redundant, and (I feel) clutters the source wiki text of a talk page needlessly. That's why I made my sig that way. But here's the weird part: When MediaWiki actually copies my signature into a talk page, it fills in the actual text on the right side of the pipe, turning my bare pipe into the redundant version. Anyone know if there's a reason for this? Is it just a quirk/bug? — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 20:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused, this page doesn't actually tell me how to change my sig, I mean how do I change the font/color? Is there another page for that? THANKS! Legotech ( talk) 00:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The Internal links section of this rules now states that "the default signature links to the user page. At least one of those two pages must be linked from your signature, to allow other editors simple access to your talk page and contributions log".
But the older version of the rules does not have such a clause. This modification (16 July 2007) was made by User:Quiddity, but it's not trivial to find out the reason. So, why do we need such a requirement?
The concern expressed here that 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" may be easily objected.
I'm really tired of seeing stupid signatures like JI MM Y WHA LES. All I want is a link to their userpage and perhaps their talk page, in the same format as everyone else. Is there anything I can do about this? -- Henry W. Schmitt ( talk) 21:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It says in the External Links section that external links are not allowed. But it is focusing on promoting your website, and it might get search engines to look there, etc. But what about to the Toolserver? I would think that would be exempt, but I am not sure. Soxred93 | talk count bot 00:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
tools:
/
AlexSm
19:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Hi everyone! :-)
Just a single question here as I'm trying to customise my signature to display both my user page and talk links, plus the date in a customised format. So far, getting the user and talk page links working was very easy - Standard WikiCode, no problem. :-)
However, as someone who uses the British method of writing the date (DD/MM/YYYY as opposed to MM/DD/YYYY or YYYY/MM/DD) and labels all of his Gregorian dates as Common Era, I've found that although I can add the date and time into my signature itself, Wikipedia keeps sticking the UTC date in after it which leads to an undesirable result, and me having to type my signature into talk pages by hand insted of using the four-tilde method.
Is there any way that I can disable the adding of the date to the end of my signature, mayhap with a tag in my raw signature box or something? My current code (In full) is as follows:
Which is intended to produce something like:
...But produces something more like:
If anyone knows how to prevent Wikipedia adding the date in this way (Or at least customising the way the date is displayed with my signature without having to enter it manually every time!) then please leave a note or overview on my talk page. Many thanks in advance for any help! :-)
Hyperspeed ( Talk) - 13 February 2008 CE 01:22 UTC
Hi, I decided to use color in my signature. I was trying to find a slightly darker shade of orange to use in the second part. Can anyone help? Also, the gigantic tag on top of this page seems rather unnecessary. I would think that people would realize the signatures talk page is for signatures. Thanks, Enigma msg! 20:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
<font color="#ff7700">Orange</font>
Tneumark (talk) date_time_info_here
Tneumark date_time_info_here
Is there a setting or something that makes the "(talk)" section display? Is there a better place to ask this question? Timneu22 ( talk) 21:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Instead of having to manually put four tildas at the end of all your posts, your signature should just be added automatically (which it is, albeit when it's automatic it notes that the comment was initially unsigned). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumarine ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree totallyyy!!! <3!!! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.164.96.75 (
talk)
22:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I want to write a template which includes ~~~~. When this template is used, tilda's should be rendered. By default tilda's are replaced when I create the template and when template is used I see the signature of the template creater (instead of template user). Is there any way to do that? -- iyigun ( talk) 14:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
well no not really maybe you could try to lik do something about it but i really dont understand what you are trying to say maybe you should put it in a less complicated way then you could probably get some help thanks hun!!♥♥ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malonmartin ( talk • contribs) 22:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
IP 124.168.215.205 is making comments in talk pages, and not only doesn't he/she sign, but she uses the !nosign! edit summary to prevent SineBot from fixing it. Should the IP's wish to not ever have a sig be respected? Or should I go ahead and add unsigned templates to his/her comments?
I am assuming this is some misguided attempt at privacy, but since everyone can see the IP in the revision history anyway, I just don't see any point to it... -- Jaysweet ( talk) 14:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't imagine this comes up that frequently, but just in case, I propose adding the following section to WP:SIG:
(begin proposed new section)
Signing posts on Talk pages is mandatory, as failure to do so interferes with the operation of various archival bots, as well as making it extremely difficult (if not impossible) to follow the flow of a conversation. In general, though, a user should not be blocked even for repeated failure to sign their posts, as it is a common mistake and is usually not particularly disruptive due to the fact that another user or bot can simply add an appropriate signature later.
An exception would be if a user repeatedly abused the !nosign! edit summary and/or removed the {{unsigned}} template added by other users. That behavior is not acceptable, and the offending user should be warned as such, with the possibility of an eventual block if the errant behavior continues.
(end proposed new section)
Comments? Is it overkill? This is the first time I've ever seen this happen, but I was sort of at a loss as to what to do... -- Jaysweet ( talk) 15:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec)
Suppose I wanted to put a link in my signature that would be directed to an internal page like AGFC. Would that be allowed? Discouraged?-- Filll ( talk) 16:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
this part is full of flaws. no need to be re-cached as they are substed so they don't get updated! – ThatWikiGuy ( talk | life | I feel like I'm being watched) 00:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear Sir, I Thanks for your valuable response and guidance. The question putup by me has not been understood in correct sense. I am intrested to know that the B Sc. Agriculture degree awarded by Birbahadur Singh Purvanchl Viswavidyalya, Jaun Pur UP. India is science stream or Arts stream. Some says it is Arts stream and some say that it belongs to science stream. How is the classification of courses carried out in universities in UP. Is there any governining body which desids the classification. Is there any Government order regarding the classification. The university does not respond to email. Please provide the Web address of the sites which may be usefull in resolving this issue.
Thanking You, Yours sincearly, Satish Chandra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.179.127 ( talk) 13:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
BRUSHLESS EXCITATION
dear sir, i logged on to your web site with the hope of getting information regarding BRUSHLESS EXCITATION SYSTEM, which are now commonly used in synchronous generators. this page couldn't be of much help to me. insted of focussing on the cost and effeciency, your focus should be extended to: the principle of operation, construction and design of the machine as well. as a student i'll be more interested in the above mentioned spheres. thank you constant visitor
This page seems to attract loads of spam for some reason. What am I missing here? Enigma message 22:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
If the templates are not acceptable but is the user template ok? Electrical Vandilize Me 19:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
If the templates are not acceptable but is the user template ok? Electrical Vandilize Me 19:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Can someone tell me in simple step-by-step terms as to how to change my sig color, size, etc.? Thanks Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. 21:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
This page seems to attract loads of spam for some reason. What am I missing here? Enigma message 22:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there any obvious reason why new code can't eventually be added so that all talk page edits by logged-in users are automatically signed? Four tildes isn't a huge hassle except for those of us with shoddy memories... Seb144 ( talk) 09:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC) <-- I remembered!
does this now happen? i got to this page because i forgot to sign my last post and it magically popped up 'Preceding unsigned comment added by 34.345.34.40....' i'll check by not signing this one... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.137.87 ( talk) 23:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
It states on the page that using a template for a signature is forbidden, with the main reason given as that it is subject to vandalism. If I have my signature template protected, so that no vandalism can occur on it, will it be permitted then? -- fone 4 me 10:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't see the point. When I was too ignorant to sign my post, the following text was appended: "—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jqavins (talk • contribs) 01:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)".
When I edited my post, adding ~~~~ at the end, this was changed to "Joe Avins (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)". So, it has my name instead of my username. If the statement that the comment was unsigned had not been present, there would be no difference of note at all! My username is as good as my name; who cares?
Okay, so it's considered good etiquette to sign each post. So I'll sign each post. But really, what's the point? Joe Avins ( talk) 23:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks bot for signing this :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.35.146 ( talk) 21:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I made wp:unsigned redirect to the Dealing with unsigned comments section, if that's okay. -- WikiWes77 ( talk) 03:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
This page says "if you must use color...". What about the advantage of using colour - that your signature is easier to pick out among others, so it is easier to follow who said what? Richard001 ( talk) 08:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In a recent WP:AN discussion it became clear that there are no real guidelines on acceptable (or unacceptable) signatures. There is also no defined process for dealing with an inappropriate signature. It has been suggested that WP:SIG contain language on proper signatures (probably similar to WP:USER NAME and include a resolution process for violations. At this point I would like to suggest we make a list of blatantly inappropriate signatures and see if we can use that list to write some guidelines. Gtstricky Talk or C 19:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
subhead added and thread split/refactored by -- Quiddity ( talk) at 04:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
subhead added by User:Docu at 06:12, 2008 September 18 (UTC)
A somewhat recent change was made following a brief discussion: 1 noting problems like "The user's sig does not link to either their user or talk page and their actual user name is not reflected in the sig, instead there is only a nonexistent pseudonym" and 2 noting "both using a sig with non-standard form of their user name (or bearing no relation at all to their user id, indeed), and with no link, which would be a recipe for untold consternation.". I think this describes well problematic signatures and we should fine tune the current guideline accordingly. -- User:Docu
subhead added by -- Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)