User talk:Reithan

Signature

Testing my signature — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 14:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Read GWW:SIGN again pls ~ SCobra 18:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything amiss - what seems to be the problem? — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 18:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Quoting: "When customizing your signature, please keep the following in mind: A distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users. Some editors may find them disruptive to discourse on talk pages. Very long signatures that contain a lot of code ("markup") make it difficult for some editors to read while editing talk pages.". It takes a while to understand your signature with the text inverted, so i am not sure if it follows the policy.--Fighterdoken 20:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can say I use this sig on at least 2 other wikis and have used it on other websites, and I've never heard of anyone having any trouble understanding it before... — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 20:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We are special :). In any case, the same policy states the procedure to follow on these cases (bureaucracy 4tw!). If people keeps complaining, it may need an RFC... or sysop intervention to decide (because the "other wikis" argument is not valid here really).--Fighterdoken 21:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't quite my point. The point is the argument is "it's confusing to people", my counter-argument is "the majority of people I've presented it to have not found it confusing." — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 21:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ow, then i guess i should rewrite it as "the majority of people (who have actually looked upon your signature, which is not as many people as what actually reads the text you write) has had, more than likely, installed the font required to display your signature correctly, which is not "all the people", and thus the signature may still not comply with the policy. If you are not sure about if the signature is right or not, HELP:WIKI can clarify it.--Fighterdoken 21:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want my opinion, the signature can be confusing, it took me a few seconds to figure out what it said, but remember, those wikis might not have the same policy as this one, and some people are able to read things upside down, some people cannot, and people should take that into consideration. --Will 21:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually saw this sig on PvX before now, and it took me a moment or two to figure out what it said. Add that to the fact that some may not have the special characters installed (could be far-fetched, but possible) and that some people on the wiki don't have English/Latin characters as their first language/text. I won't make this into another mgrinshpon, but I would say it's best if you changed the sig. -- Brains12 \ Talk 21:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(resetting indent)As to the special characters, it's just basic unicode, which is, as far as I know, pretty much standard across most of North America, Europe, Australia and Japan...though, I suppose if you're running an older operating system or have just chosen to uninstall unicode, you could conceivably not have those characters...

As to it being hard to understand, I'm not sure I'm convinced, there. Even you few who say you did "have trouble" with it, admit you got it after a second or two. As for the policy, it seems the only part I MAY be violating is the 'hard to read' part, I still don't see that it's hard to read, by any stretch, if you 'get it' after only a couple seconds. — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 21:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to add (-sigh-, now i look like Eloc) that Win98/IE6 are having displaying problems with the signature. It shows as box|box| u box box box l box box. I know there is no love for ye olde OS here, but some of us still use them :).--Fighterdoken 18:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but you're 2 OSs and 1 browser version behind current, and Win98 DOES have unicode support available - though you have to enable it. I'm not an elitist for "Zomg most current version of everything always!" but you're more than a few years behind and issue is still avoidable, even for you. — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 18:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

While recognizable and decipherable, it does seem to be in violation of the guidelines imo... I have no problem with a signature which I cant actually "read", as long as I recognize it as the one which belongs to "that guy who has his sig upsidedown". But depending on how strict the admins (or whoever) want to be i could see this as being disallowed. Just been reading ur posts on the suggestions pages and noticed the sig and wondered if anyone had had problems with it... obviously some have.Ashes Of Doom 17:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you had your username the right side up with normal letters (whether it replaced the current one, or goes near the current one), that would be fine - the sig would easily identify your username for any user, regardless of browser or OS. -- Brains12 \ Talk 17:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way we can flag this to possible request an admin or moderator's opinion/judgement? — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 17:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, GWW:RFC would be the proper place, but if you want a more direct answer i think HELP:WIKI or even better, GWW:NOTICE could do the trick. The last one may not be the better place, but will attract more attention from sysops and less from normal users.--Fighterdoken 17:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you need to have an upside-down signature? It probably looks better right-side up, and right now is pretty bad and indecipherable. Calor 18:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you really need to have a thin, italic, blue signature? It probably looks better in a normal, black font, and right now is pretty bad and kinda squiggly and hard to read if you're a few feet from the monitor. — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 18:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair point, but who reads more than three or four feet from the monitor? My chair is only a bit under arm's reach away from the monitor. Also, the point I was trying to make was that you didn't need to have a signature that violated policy. My signature follows all policy, your signature doesn't. Calor 18:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair point, but who runs a 10 year-old operating system without unicode enabled? A buddy of mine's monitor is all the way across the room (media center with wireless keyboard). Also the point I was trying to make was that the portion of policy my signature allegedy violates is ENTIRELY subjective. IMO, my signature follows all policy, your signature is funny-looking. So, nyeh. :P — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 18:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems reading his sig at all. If his signature was bright yellow I could understand the problem.. --horsedrowner 12:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Guild History

did you use to be in XoO? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:24.238.15.75 (talk).

I'd really like to say yes. Unfortunately, that would be a lie. LOL — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 03:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)