PvXwiki talk:Sign your comments

Flow

There's a discussion on my talk page that made me think of a few things. For one, the "interrobang" (as it's supposedly called) does not seem to interrupt the flow of the discussion. For another, even if it did, it would only do so if lines were separated with <br> tags instead of new paragraphs (as I demonstrated on that portion of my talk page). Thirdly, I think the same applies to sup and sub tags. I can see how in general the big tag could be a problem (maybe...), but I think we should allow sup and sub tags, and big tags around characters usually smaller than normal text. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 23:56, 19 May 2007 (CEST)

Agree. Could be changed to something like "Markup such as <big>, <sup>, and <sub> tags (which produce big, ^sup, and _sub text), may be used only if they don't disrupt the normal spacing between rows of text."

Btw: I don't really get why a policy called PvXwiki:Sign your comments leaves signing comments optional. Why not ask people to sign always? --Hhhippo 22:56, 1 June 2007 (CEST)

I'll add note. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 23:37, 1 June 2007 (CEST)

Idk if Readem is editing right now as I type, but his last edit left "Your IP address might look something like this: 192.0.2.58. Some users " at the very bottom. Not sure if "Some users" was supposed to come off, or if he has something planned for completing the sentence, just thought I'd bring it up. ‽-(єronħ) no u 00:03, 2 June 2007 (CEST)

He deleted a huge part of the page, I guess by accident. Let's wait a bit and then revert. --Hhhippo 00:05, 2 June 2007 (CEST)

Large page bug. It happens. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 02:31, 2 June 2007 (CEST)

Yeah my bad, didn't notice I deleted it even O.o... Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 02:33, 2 June 2007 (CEST)

Well, with that bug, you don't. The browser does it for you. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 02:36, 2 June 2007 (CEST)

Is it known which browsers do it and in which situations? We could put a warning on some help page. I know the wiki warns you when editing long pages, but after seeing that a few times without anything happening you tend to ignore it. --Hhhippo 13:15, 2 June 2007 (CEST)

Are we gonna change

• Markup such as <big>, <sup>, and <sub> tags (which produce big, ^sup, and _sub text), are not allowed, as they disrupt the normal spacing between rows of text.

to

• Markup such as <big>, <sup>, and <sub> tags (which produce big, ^sup, and _sub text), are not allowed, unless they don't disrupt the normal spacing between rows of text.

(or something similar and betterly worded (yes, betterly)) ‽-(єronħ) no u 07:12, 2 June 2007 (CEST)

Don't change it. We will encounter far too many problems in the future if we do. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 07:15, 2 June 2007 (CEST)

Awww. Guess that sig of mine was just too good to be true... ah well, there's more important things in life, such as that acorn over there. (goes to check it out) ‽-(єronħ) no u 07:18, 2 June 2007 (CEST)

>.>...sweet an acorn :)! Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 07:23, 2 June 2007 (CEST)

I still vote for changing. A violation is detected only if the flow is broken anyway, so why not loosen the restrictions such that only detectable problems are illegal. I wonder what would have happened if Eronth just overlooked that rule and used his big interrobang without breaking the flow. I bet that nobody would have noticed it. --Hhhippo 13:23, 2 June 2007 (CEST)

There will probably be quite a few people who don't know what flow is and how to check for it. ‽-(єronħ) no u 17:15, 3 June 2007 (CEST)

Teach them. Learning > all. (Except perhaps cookies.) -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 05:25, 4 June 2007 (CEST)

Really, you gotta be kidding me? Teach people, and then them learning :O. Blasphemy. It will never work. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 05:27, 4 June 2007 (CEST)

Meh, it's not like people look at this much anyways. Might as well allow it unless it breaks stuff. ‽-(єronħ) no u 06:11, 4 June 2007 (CEST)

Well... by the time most people make there own signatures, most are at least somewhat familiar with the wiki, and, if you consider how many total people both to make a Sig, combined with the fact that only a small portion of THOSE people would then try to use these tags, it wouldn't be terribly hard to educate/inform the small number that do. *Defiant Elements* +talk 06:14, 4 June 2007 (CEST)

Good point, though I have seen it around a lot, most of the sigs that have it don't break flow either. ‽-(єronħ) no u 06:20, 4 June 2007 (CEST)

Actually, I meant put something about it on the project page. >.> -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 05:09, 5 June 2007 (CEST)

To teach people? I don't know if that would teach more people than this would...or am I missing something? Also, how many people do we need to support the change in order for it to happen. ‽-(єronħ) no u 06:17, 5 June 2007 (CEST)

Simply put on the main page "This is flow. This is how you check with it." etc. etc. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 15:52, 5 June 2007 (CEST)

Does that mean I can use ‽-(єronħ) ^{no u} now? ‽-(єronħ) no u 21:35, 5 June 2007 (CEST)

It doesn't disrupt, but it's too many lines of coding. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 21:42, 5 June 2007 (CEST)

It's only 2 lines of coding, I thought 2 lines was legal... ‽-(єronħ) no u 02:59, 6 June 2007 (CEST)

Nvm. Jst realized something lol. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 07:23, 6 June 2007 (CEST)

How do i customise my sig?Twin Phoenix Blades 22:13, 13 October 2007 (CEST)

Moving images are disallowed for a reason

Looking at PvXwiki:Requests for Build Master Status/Armond, I fear we are a few quick steps away from absolute trash like this (his signatures are at the top of his userpage; also note his abuse of the new messages color/style). Grinsh started it with his pie sig (which technically violates PvX:SIGN), and I really didn't want to ding him on it; but seeing as others are already copying him, putting my foot down now is most likely not too soon. Comments/thoughts? -Auron 08:15, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Agree. This is not myspace. Signatures can be customized so people are easily recognized, but if somebody wants to spread eye-cancer, please do so somewhere else. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 10:10, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Changed it:< --Tab Moo 11:33, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Template

Are signature templates allowed? For example {{User:Dont/Sig|~~~~~}} so there won't be three rows of formatting and can be changed easily. I heard something about caching so I'm not sure. ~ ĐONT*TALK 08:12, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

"Do not use transclusion, templates or parser functions in signatures." Basically, if you or anyone else ever changes that template, the server has to go back and change the content of every single page you've ever signed to match the new template. It can get ugly. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 12:39, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

I see. Thanks. ~ ĐONT*TALK 14:15, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

You could take a screen of what you want it to look like and use that image instead. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 16:21, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

I feel uncomfortable with images. If I make them non-transparent, any changes to the background colour will affect it. If I make it transparent, there is no anti-aliasing or browsers display it differently. Furthermore, three links mean three images, no underline upon hover etc. I'll just stick to this after all. ~ ĐONT*TALK 17:52, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Is this Legal?

=[[User:Fire Tock|<font color=orange>'''Fire'''</font>]][[Image:Fire_Tock_SigPic_2.jpg|19px]][[User talk:Fire Tock|<font color=orange>'''Tock'''</font>]]= Is this Legal? 13:42, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

What is legal? Godbox 13:58, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

My sig. It's huge.--=FireTock= 14:00, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

user:Fire Tock/Sig 5--=FireTock= 14:01, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Errr no. It disrupts the natural flow of the talk page, kk? Godbox 14:02, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Ok.--=FireTock= 14:03, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

This better?--Fire Tock ^{'s Button leads to Gwiki.} 14:09, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

The previous one was okay as long as it isn't made as a header. Godbox 14:44, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Wizard's

User:Wizardboy777/Newbie Guide/Signatures: owns this :P--Relyk 18:18, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Image → contribs

We should add that the image can redirect to the user's contributions. Pretty much the same as user page or user talk. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 07:24, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

<big> and its equivalents

Some people started to use various HTML and CSS codes instead of <big> to achieve the same effect. So I made this simple table to have a reference besides PvX:SIGN. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 03:38, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

I DONT GET IT!!!

Sub and Sup

By using both Sup and Sub tags, you're slightly breaking the line spacing (1px above and 1px under). However, it is allowed. Eh? --› Srs Beans R Srs 13:58, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Templates

We allow them, so the page needs to be changed. It should say that you must ask an admin to protect the page though, to prevent vandalism. I don't know how to word it. Due to User talk:Shadowcrest ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs    admin   20:47, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

I believe Dont has volunteered to edit the page according to community concensus tomorrow sometime. I would, however, like to read all such relevant pages for myself, if you or Dont know where they are. As for how to state it, just put "You may use transcluded pages if you first have an admin protect the page" or some such statement, if that's what the community decided. --Shadowcrest 21:18, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

I disagree, as per the discussions that have already taken place on the talk page. Page protection is an administrative tool that shouldn't be used lightly. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 21:34, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

PvXwiki:Requests for Signature Template. Anyway, I think I will create a page where users can test if their signature is breaking the flow of text, which would solve many problems. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 14:35, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

External images in signatures

E.g.: Godbox

Do we allow them? They don't redirect and they never can which may confuse some people, but it lets people use copyvio sigs and minimises drama to not care and just let people use them and update the policy to reflect this. I really don't care if the image redirects or not as it doesn't link anywhere so it's not really going to be less convenient for anyone. As long as it complies to the rest of the image guidelines, I don't care. Images that are uploaded to the wiki should still redirect as a link leading to a dead end is a pain in the fucking arse. - Misery Says Moo 21:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine. You can't even click on it, you would have to copypasta the code of the image into your browser just to see the image, and that doesn't really do anything bad. Basically, it's not a link, it's not a copyvio, it's fine imo -- 21:11, 23 February 2009

(copied from my reply to Miz on Auron's talk, no changes done, except time) It does say near the bottom of SIGN about external linking... while the image isn't a hyperlink, it's still a link to an external site, so it's questionable if it's even usable. I would imagine using an externally hosted image in a sig is a bad idea. It would be a bit like a "template" from what i understand, if the image gets updated or deleted from the host, then all images here (where the user has signed) would be updated as well :/ ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 21:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats a big N O then. Frosty po! 21:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would cause lag on the wiki like a template update would, but there could be problems if images were deleted later. What does a broken image link look like? I guess it would just show the text seeing as it automatically imbeds it, like:

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f202/Bolt02/weighted-companion-cube-smallbutitactuallydoesn'texist.png Godbox

This could lead to some long ass signatures if shit is ever deleted, or HUGE images in signatures if they are ever changed. I guess we might have to ban it after all. - Misery Says Moo 21:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I honestly do not see how that is a problem. We had the same problem before with the crash of PvX + images that were deleted resulting in quite big signatures and while I can only speak for myself it didn't annoy me. You usually don't edit comments that far up, and reading the comments isn't really very hard either. If the only negative thing deriving from it will be possibly long signatures upon deletion of images I think the problem is a bit too small to really justify pissing people of by banning it. Godbox 21:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

oh shit. And regarding images: I do see that being a problem, but I doubt that will ever happen ;o Godbox 21:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's on my photobucket, i never delete stuff from there -- 22:07, 23 February 2009

(EC)If we delete an image because of copyvio, any image host can. And since people use external image link to embed copyvio pics, there is a chance that those will end up deleted. Furthermore, any changes made to images stored on external sites will show up here. Let's say you have a 19×19px image.. then someone overwrites it with a 1000×1000 NSFW pic. You can't do anything but remove the link from a billion talkpages. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 22:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's my input on the guidelines. I think that if someone uses an image (such as Godliest), it should be uploaded to a photobucket account and never be deleted. It's not hard to do. And if it is deleted, it would just cause the same problem that happened at PvX. And really, no one bitched about it (IIRC). If people start to bitch about it, someone can make a bot to go through and remove all the links to the picture. However, that shouldn't happen.

tl;dr: Pictures are fine as long as they are uploaded somewhere that it won't get deleted (photobucket). – ツtalkツcontribs 22:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

External sig subst + vandalous intent = epic vandalism when the photobucket image gets replaced with goatse. - Misery Says Moo 22:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Godbox

One less thing to worry about. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 23:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That was much less code than I thought it would be to do. Probably the smallest concern though. I'd like to wait a bit and see what some other people have to say, I'm fence sitting atm. - Misery Says Moo 23:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I had a feeling it could be directed towards userpages (Dont the wikian) but there still remains the problem that if we allow it, the above problems could occur (someone linking a pic and it getting changed vandalizm or not) Frosty po! 00:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Absolutely no signatures are allowed to have external images. They are still part of the signature and must still retain all utility thereof - the signature must comply with our standards, including length/width restrictions and have the userpage/talk redirect. -Auron 00:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

And what if it complies to the length/width restrictions (as Godliest's does) and redirects to the user page or talk page (as Godliest's does)? – ツtalkツcontribs 23:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats all well and good but if the policy says people can use images hosted from other sites, and everybody starts using them, there is bound to be an incident where a picture has been removed/changed. Obviously if the person only changed one page in that time, not much worry, if they changed say 400 pages, thats gonna really fuck everything up so to speak. Frosty po! 23:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Then here's my solution so as to prevent any errors from occurring. An admin makes a photobucket account for pvx photos. You link said admin to the photo you want to use, and they save it there on the photobucket. Then they link you to it, and you use it. That way, it will never be deleted or removed or changed. While this may be a lot of unnecessary work, it'd solve the problem, and if no current admins care to do it, then promote someone or have a trusted/high-standing user oversee it. – ツtalkツcontribs 21:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Or you could just, you know, use your own photobucket. Brandnew. 22:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Or you could just, you know, not use external images. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 23:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's just a sig, I mean who cares if you have a little picture in it or not? --Crowels[슴Mc슴]Mootles 23:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Crow wins this thread. Seriously, we document builds. - Misery Says Moo 13:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

External images is a bad idea because we can't change them. If someone uses an external image as their signature then someone changes that picture to a 4000x4000 image of goatse or whatever there's not much we can do about it short of getting a bot to remove all the references to that picture from all the pages it was posted on. - 14:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If you read my latest suggestion, you'd realize that it wouldn't be a problem. However I honestly don't care now if this is allowed or not, since I have no intention of using an external image. Tbh, you can just throw out all my suggestions. – ツtalkツcontribs 20:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with unsigned comments

del 'em all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Elephantaliste Noir 00:11, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

I also propose bringing in a policy which bans any users posting exactly 29 consecutive exclamation marks AthrunFeya 00:18, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

You must be desperate. Don't forget to add a policy for posting 29 consecutive images or for posting irrelevant comments on admin noticeboard. Elephantaliste Noir 00:25, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

Wow. You are pretty stupid aren't you? -- Drah 00:28, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

I gonna PvX:CHILL out, too many NPA around and irrelevant discussions. After all, people like unsigned comments, using unsigned template or better, they do nothing. Elephantaliste Noir 00:35, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

Lau was saying that we should ban people who use 29 exclamation marks because you had just used exactly 29 in the post before. It wasn't being desperate. -- Drah 00:39, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I counted them AthrunFeya 00:44, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

Same. Also you don't mind me calling you Lau do you. Seeing as I have never really met you but calling you Athrun is getting kinda annoying :> -- Drah 00:47, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, don't mind, but prefer Lau anyway. AthrunFeya 00:47, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

It's teh interwebs >.> I could call you dickmunch and you probably wouldn't care. Life Guardian 00:49, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

You know what my answer wasn't random. But you made me laugh Drah... Elephantaliste Noir 00:55, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

"Unsigned comments are assigned the same value as signed comments." Do you need any more clarifying to why you're getting trolled? ---Chaos is gay - 06:57, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

I always thought that signing your comments was kind of a "guide line" as in you didn't really have to do it if you didn't want to, but people liked it when you did. -- Drah 00:58, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

Attention, replying to stupidity makes you look equally stupid, that is all. ----ﮎHædõ๘یíɳ 01:49, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

ups--Relyk 02:33, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

Going to go ahead and say no thanks to a complete lack of reasoning. Have a nice day. Misery Says Moo 07:01, October 1, 2009 (UTC)