Wikipedia talk:Signatures

Welcome to the discussion

---

Archives:

• Archive 1

Internal links (2)

• Removed section
• Talk section above

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

The section as removed reads as follows:

Internal links

Use internal links sparingly.

You may include a link to your talk page for people who want to discuss something with you person-to-person. Beyond that, use internal links sparingly. If you find a particular Wikipedia page useful, put it in your browser bookmarks, favorites list, or on your userpage—not in your signature.

The vast majority of all signatures link only to either the user or user+talk. It is self-evident that other links are unnecessary (a signature isn't a userpage) and undesirable. They add clutter to discussion pages. --Tony Sidaway 10:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, anything other than a plain unpiped link is "unnecessary" but good luck getting that one past the goalie. Enough people use other links to make outlawing them by fiat a bad idea. Go convince a whole bucket-load of people then change the guideline. - brenneman 11:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The most popular "third-party" link I see is to Esperanza, and I don't think it's that common. But then I disagree that anything is too wide-spread to not suggest changes. I also disagree with the view that we're "outlawing them by fiat." It's a guideline, not a policy. And I don't think we're going to get bucket-loads of people here to discuss anything. I like this section, with one small caveat: the words "You may..." as I say, it's only a guideline. We could start that "You can..." or "Some like to..." and take the permissive edge off it. --InkSplotch 18:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Ummm, Tony? The section removed is quoted above in total. You're misrepresenting it as "just one line"; it just has one line in bold, and then significant expansion in the explanatory text. -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. The section I quoted above is substantially more than one line, and I have never claimed otherwise. --Tony Sidaway 19:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The words "it says only" followed by quoting the bolded text make it seem like that is the sum total of the wording of that section (or of your approved edits to it, at least). For me, at least, that's not the line I have a problem with; it's the explanatory text below that I think goes too far. -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I think I could have worded my refutation better. Aaron claimed that it outlawed (other) internal links "by fiat", and I pointed out that it did nothing of the sort. I didn't mean that those were the only words, but that it was the whole of the intent--advice rather than a hard rule, and even then much milder than Aaron thought. Could you explain how you think the other text goes too far, and could you look at the suggested new version below and see if it works better? --Tony Sidaway 19:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

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

I think possibly that some editors (Aaron amongst them) think that the section as removed was advising people to link only to the talk page. My mistake. I intended to advise the norm, which is the inclusion of a link to the talk page in addition to the default of the user page (Aaron may have been misled by the fact that I personally do not link to my user page because it's only a redirect to my talk page). I think it could be worded better. Here's an idea:

Internal links

Use internal links sparingly.

The default signature is a link to the user page. You may want to add a link to your talk page for people who want to discuss something with you person-to-person. Beyond that, use internal links sparingly. If you find a particular Wikipedia page useful, put it in your browser bookmarks, favorites list, or on your userpage—not in your signature.

I've also attempted to take notice of Inksplotch's direction and changed "you may" to "you may want to" so that it doesn't appear to be dictating precise actions.

There is nothing in that version or in the earlier version to suggest that Esperanza links are "outlawed", although it would be correct to state that unnecessary links are deprecated. In particular, it's probably okay to put a link to Esperanza's page at most once on each talk page to which that organization is relevant. The link doesn't belong at all on general discussion pages, so it's probably not a good idea to include it in your signature. Even if the Esperanza link does belong on a particular discussion page, it probably isn't a good idea to hide it away in your signature. --Tony Sidaway 19:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd call this tendentious editing. It's hardly a "rewrite" either. Perhaps, while discussions are ongoing, the page could have lived for a while in something other than Tony's version? Regardless, this section seems pointless. It's not an uncommon practice, it's not a terribly problematic behavior, and I don't see "consensus" for it's inclusion. Make the guideline as concise and precise as possible, without adding extra baggage like this paragraph. - brenneman ^{L} 00:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, I'm completly confused by this. First everyone is doing it and adding to the guideline is unlikely to change things, and now it's not common enough to warrant inclusion? Well, I ought to have said something earlier, but I like the revision, I think it's a worthwhile addition. And consensus moves along...

By the by, could someone tell me what "tendentious" means? My quickie web search suggests "marked by a tendancy in favor of a particualr point of view." I see it through around on WP almost like a synonym for "vandalism." Still, by the book definition, if someone is saying an other is pushing a POV, can we just say "pushing a POV?" --InkSplotch 21:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? I never said "everyone is doing it" or even that a mojority do it. The words I used were "frequent," "sprinkled liberally," and "not an uncommon practice." It is neither unknown (in which case it wouldn't need mentioning) nor used ny the majority (in which case a few editors sayong stop would be pointless.) It's done by a noticable minority, it's unlikely to change, and is probably redundant with the length item if someone linked seven pages in thier sig. - brenneman ^{L} 04:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think my revision was good. I've no idea why Aaron thinks there is a problem with inserting a revision after discussion. --Tony Sidaway 21:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

On the word tendentious, I welcome its use on Wikipedia. "Pushing a POV" is an ugly bit of jargon that disfigures many Wikipedia discussions. The word tendentious should of course never be used to mean "vandalism". --Tony Sidaway 21:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people have internal links in their signatures, and I did too, at one point (until someone told me that my sig was getting too long). An example is ILP. Freddie _Message? 01:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why something like this:

• Natalya 10:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC) - I chose Natalya as she is the current admin gen of Esperanza, and so is our representative.

is a problem. It's not even two lines long (especially if you disregard the time stamp). If a sig was full of internal links, and that, in turn, made the page significantly difficult to read while editing, then it would need to be looked at. However, if it is like the above example, then it should be left alone. I'm interested though, to find out why it probably isn't a good idea to hide it away (who's hiding it away? I'm proud) in your signature. It's all about personal choice seeing as this is a guideline, not policy. Thε Halo ^Θ 09:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, this is a guideline, so it is really up to the editor, alongside the community, to decide whether having a link in his signature is appropriate. I would only remark that, as far as I can tell, there is seldom a need to put an internal link in your signature. If you think a talk page should have a link to a certain Wikipedia page, then putting it into the message body of one edit is surely preferable to adding to the clutter on every discussion page you edit, whether it needs the link or not, with every single edit you make to that page. However this guideline absolutely doesn't say you can't link to Esperanza in your signature. I don't know why you would want to do that when you have a whole userspace in which to do that, but there's nothing to stop you doing it. --Tony Sidaway 21:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Digression by Halo

Changing other people's sigs is very bad faith Tony. As I have already said, this is a guideline, and as you have said, it is up to the editor (which, in this case, is me), so I would like it if you would not change my statements, thank you very much.

You say two things which interest me greatly:

1. ...so it is really up to...the community, to decide whether having a link in his signature is appropriate. - yes I would agree with this. I would, however, like to point out that so far the consensus seems to be that everyone else doesn't mind and that you're pushing your POV on sig on other users.
2. ...there is seldom a need to put an internal link in your signature. Who decides what the need is? Seeing as this is a guideline, I would again point to it being up to the editor whether or not there is a need to put in an internal link.

Thε Halo ^Θ 00:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC) - please don't change it this time ;)

No, removing unnecessary clutter is normal good practise on a wiki. I'll leave one instance of your signature in full so that this section will still have all the links you think it should have, but not redundandtly. I have read your expression of what you believe to be community consensus, but I have to say that I have not found that to be the case.

Who decides what the need is? We use our common sense. Discussion pages are for discussion, not adding links to your favorite Wikipedia pages. You have a userspace and you can do it there. --Tony Sidaway 00:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Again you are using words like unnecessary. You are not appointed to judge what is unnecessary, and what isn't. You say that you haven't found my expression (It's all about personal choice...) not to be community consensus, but if that is the case, how come this is a guideline, not a policy? Thε Halo ^Θ 00:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand most of the above (perhaps you're assuming to much about what I've said) but to address your point about necessity: I hope you will accept that it is not necessary, for instance, to have more than one link to your Esperanza subpage in every discussion you engage in. One should be enough (if indeed this discussion requires any link at all to that page, which I view as somewhat dubious). If you think this discussion needs a link to that page, perhaps it would be better to include a link to it in the body of an edit just once, accompanied by an explanation of why you think this page requires that link.

The purpose of discussion pages is not to fill a wiki page with multiple redundant copies of that link, but to engage in discussion. --Tony Sidaway 01:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid, Tony, that I don't fully understand your POV either, but I guess when you've got to editors who feel passionately about a subject, but have different views, that's what you're going to get ;)

To make my view clear, this is a guideline that says, use internal links sparingly, so I think that one internal link is quite sparing.

I also think that having a sig like mine promotes the community through individuality, and also makes it easy to see a comment made by me when just reading the page (as in *ah, the green e and one of those Θ. The Halo put that thing there...*).

I have now said all that I feel needs to be said, and I hope that it can be useful to this discussion.

Yours, Thε Halo ^Θ 09:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

PS - I've kept my sig the same, except that I have taken out it's internal links, per your request Tony.

I think we've been talking to cross purposes. You're talking about your signature, which I think is well within the guidelines. I'm just talking about what I consider to be desirable in a discussion page. If I encounter a Wikipedia page that seems to contain a lot of unnecessary clutter, especially if it makes it very difficult to edit the page, then I'll remove the clutter. This doesn't affect your signature at all; if you test the signature in your sandbox you'll see that I haven't altered it at all, and if you look at your original edit you'll see that this hasn't been tampered with either. But the talk page, which is a shared space, has been altered, in order to remove the clutter and redundancy.

On your comments about the community, remember that the community only exists insofar as it is necessary to write an encyclopedia. Promotion of a community for its own sake, whether "through individuality" or anything else, is probably counter-productive. --Tony Sidaway 08:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No consensus

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

Oh I'd not scream, but I think it would be counter-productive to remove it. It expresses very well the undesirability of cluttering up talk pages with unnecessary internal links in signatures, and it follows from the purpose of signatures:

Signatures on Wikipedia identify you as a user, and your contributions to Wikipedia. They encourage civility in discussions by identifying the author of a particular comment, and the date and time at which it was made.

As such it's a useful and informative elaboration and will undoubtedly contribute to the tidiness of discussion pages. --Tony Sidaway 18:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

In the name of allah, merciful magnificient.

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

--imrana 0500; 11 september 2006

Additional guideline?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guideline -> Official Policy

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

Seconded. This should be policy. Ben Aveling 02:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Nah, we've got plenty of policy already. Sure, it's widely accepted but what will be the advantage of making this policy? Some editors are already rude as hell when discussing signatures, making this "policy" will only aggrevate that. And to what end? - brenneman ^{L}

I don't see why a minority of people finding a policy annoying is a good reason to not make something a policy. Society doesn't get rid of laws because some criminals are rude as hell when discussing them. I support. Hyacinth 18:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Instructions re unsigned talk posts

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

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

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

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

Signature Instructions During Registration

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

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

Appearance and colour

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

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

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

Thank You.

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

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

Signatures in images

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

History repeats itself. ~MDD4696 17:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Signature {user : hopiakuta}

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

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

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

Thank You.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank You.

hopiakuta ; [[ ]] { ¡ ¿ [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ; 04:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Thank You.

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

---

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

---

Thank You.

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

Two weeks ago,

I'd requested assistance.

Now, it's nearly gotten my account deleted.

Please?

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

unsigned template - time/datestamp

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

Try this one: {{unsigned2}}.

Use it like this: {{unsigned2|03:20, 31 October 2006|Blaxthos}}

To produce this: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaxthos (talk • contribs) 03:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

-- AuburnPilot^talk 03:38, 31 October 2006 _(UTC)

Armenians

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

siggy

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

Two weeks ago,

I'd requested assistance.

Now, it's nearly gotten my account deleted.

Please?

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

Grandfather's name

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

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

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

Any help well be greatly appreciated.

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

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

James Pataluna, pataluna@bardstowncable.net

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

Suggestion

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

And would be a massive unnecessary drain on the servers, what with changing every single page you'd ever posted on every single time you changed your signature, and would be a gaping _target for vandalism, allowing vandals to vandalise every single page you'd ever posted on. Transcluding signatures isn't even possible for these reasons - see the guideline. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Miltopia 03:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Categories, however, can be included. I just tested.[1] Of course, it's among the worst ideas ever, but I don't think it's directly against the rules. --tjstrf talk 05:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Reference to -Ril-

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

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

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

Referencing the arbitration case is necessary if we wish to show that arbitration cases have been filed over signatures. It's not defaming the user or anything, arbcom cases are available for public viewing anyway. As a compromise I suggest that the portion which mentions Ril be put in ref tags so that it doesn't show up at the top of the page. --tjstrf talk 22:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's at all true. More significantly, I don't think it's all necessary to cite any examples or specific instances in the slightest. You can easily just leave it as the first two paragraphs of that section:

A distracting, confusing or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users. Some editors find it disruptive to discourse on talk pages, or when working in the edit window. Very long signatures that contain a lot of code ("markup") make it difficult for some editors to read talk pages while editing.
If asking another user to change their signature, remember to remain polite. If you are asked to change your signature, please avoid interpreting a polite request as an attack. As Wikipedia is based on working together in harmony, both parties should work together to find a mutually acceptable solution.

more than amply does the job. Simply put, I don't think it's at all necessary to make a single person stand out when it isn't necessary. Can other people read about that arbitration? Sure. But that doesn't mean that a link to it belongs on a guideline page. Similarly, it isn't customary to cite specific infractions of every possible bad behaviour discouraged on wikipedia, is it?

For reference, look at Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. Notice that they didn't choose to cite an example of a specific person for such behaviour. Bladestorm 22:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The statement "People can be forced to change their signature" is less self-evident than the statement "People can be forced not to make personal attacks", so I don't think the comparison stands up. Hundreds of people have been blocked or banned for personal attacks - so far as I know, very few people have been forced to change signature and Ril is the only one I'm aware of where the change was forced by Arbcom. That's why a "yes, this did happen, see here for the full case" sentence is beneficial, IMO. Plus, if we did point out a single incident out of the numerous personal attacks, then we really would be unfairly singling them out ("why me out of thousands?"); when the situation is more unique that doesn't apply.

However, I see no reason why Ril should actually be mentioned by name in this guideline, so I've changed that. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Photograph

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

Canking 23:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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