711:
widespread methods for group conversation, where colour and icons associated with the user name can carry meaning. As
Levivich alluded to earlier, if we want to mandate that certain information be associated with each signed post, then it would best for the software to provide the info, or provide user interfaces or tools that provide the needed functionality. (For example, in addition to the pure wikitext methods of pinging, we could also have tools allowing you to look up users to ping using auto-complete, so you'd never have to copy and paste a whole user name. If the software were extended to support an alias as part of user profiles, then you could search users by alias, too, and users could set it to match their signatures.) Of course, in the meantime, it may be desirable to provide more encouragement to follow specific conventions.
1533:$ 300 million and we're worried about server load from images in signatures? Ahem. I just want to remind everyone reading this that for many years, other websites like Facebook and Twitter (and MySpace and Geocities and Wordpress and so many more), have been able to allow their users to post images, even in hi-res, even embedded video, even with infinite scrolling, for millions of simultaneous users, without crashing their servers or their users' browsers. The technology has been out there for many years; we're using sticks and stones here (aka MediaWiki). (And I agree with the removal of the server load and DOS reason.)
1606:, the previous point also means that if a user goes to the link saying ‘wingardium leviosa’, but arrives at the user page of a user called ‘Stream Levitating by Dua Lipa’, they might be a bit confused about whether they were lead to the right page. While some changes to them can be fine, user links should not be entirely different from their username (‘Kendoll’ → ‘KenDoll’ is fine and might be actually preferred for screen readers, ‘Kendoll’ → ‘KENSINGTON DOLLARBILLS’ or ‘ꓘ∈И’ are not), unless you also insert the username, preferably somewhere in the link itself.
646:
seems very reasonable. I have now changed my signature back from something mildly clever to something rather plain. From your description of a newbie's journey above I infer that custom colours, signatures not matching the username and irrelevant fanciness all cause problems for newcomers, and while I disagree that newbie conversion rate is the only number for us to look at, a campaign for simpler signatures ("do it for the newbies!") could actually be helpful. If 90% of users have plain blue signatures, do you think that will help? —
956:
2256:
2296:
1136:
to address them, etc. (it's largely a non-problem though, since requiring the full username doesn't entail disallowing extra text containing a Latin-script nickname; the main thing would be that they would perhaps not always have the necessary space to include the username along with the nick) Those who argue that such problems will arise actually want to be less restrictive, i.e., they want to allow all kinds of variations instead of the username, not require them.
2186:
2286:
31:
1577:
signatures usually use more colours, so if the only signatures on the page are custom, some users might not be able to tell that you can go to a user/talk page. This is especially bad for links that are in black, as that makes them indistinguishable from the page text colour. That means that a custom-coloured user signature should have some other way of recognising it as a link, specifically an underline. Not having one on those links is
2032:
2316:
2291:
2266:
2177:
2321:
2251:
2246:
2241:
2236:
365:
have a measurable positive effect on the editing environment for new users. Allowing people their small quirks seems more useful to me in welcoming a diverse editing community. I actually believe it is good practice to have the username in the sig, but I don't believe that requiring this is a good rule. Certainly enforcing such a rule is going to have far higher social costs than there are technical benefits. —
2231:
2196:
2216:
2311:
2306:
2301:
2211:
2191:
2476:
2172:
2167:
2162:
2157:
2152:
2147:
2142:
2137:
2132:
2127:
2122:
2117:
2112:
2107:
2102:
2097:
2092:
2087:
2082:
2077:
2072:
2067:
2062:
2057:
2052:
2047:
2042:
2037:
908:
custom signatures instead of default was a barrier to entry would sway at least one mind (mine) and I suspect quite a few others. So if you really want to sway minds, that's the way to do it - not just saying "believe me when I say it is so". Maybe someone else will just take you at your word with this - but in my field, we don't believe until we see with our own eyes. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (
2206:
2276:
2226:
2221:
2023:
2018:
2013:
2008:
2003:
1998:
1993:
1988:
1983:
1978:
1973:
1968:
1963:
1958:
1953:
1948:
1943:
1938:
1933:
1928:
1923:
1918:
1913:
1908:
1903:
1898:
1893:
1888:
1883:
1878:
1873:
1868:
1863:
1858:
1853:
1848:
1843:
1838:
1833:
1828:
1823:
1818:
1813:
1007:
to one of those unfortunate who-left-when happenstance things, a good deal of design research work seems to have gotten lost, and that's not counting the stuff that never made it into the cloud in the first place, which included pretty much all of the original user research data from a decade or more ago. I think that nearly all of the original data collected by
1121:. Most of the Lint errors in discussion namespaces are because of signatures. Custom signatures cause unnecessary maintenance overhead in future, so I don't use anything other than the default signature. Anyone curious about how to pronounce my username can see it in my userpage. Link to talk page will be in English, so no problem if anyone wants to communicate.
2201:
2271:
2261:
1083:'s line about enforcing hard and fast rules will have a "far higher social cost than...technical benefits". As ever throughout this discussion it is clear that the winning argument, the stronger argument, is with those of us who don't agree that the guidelines should force all of us to have the same drab boring generic signatures.
1599:. All links in a signature should a clear description of their purpose, so while u-t-c meaning links to ‘user’, ‘talk’, ‘contributions’ might be understandable at least to some from the link context, it is pretty much impossible that ‘clubs symbol’ and ‘spades symbol’ would be understood as ‘contributions’ and ‘email this user’.
2281:
533:- most confusing thing to any new user is the signature. Why is the signature different between these two people? Does that connote status, or permissions? What do the red ones mean? Are those moderators? What's "contribs"? Why is it at the end of the comment? Why isn't it called out more clearly?
1661:
that removes most of the custom signature code for me, leaving only their text. To be honest, I have made it not because I wanted our talk pages to be more accessible, but because I considered most of custom signatures ugly and attention-seeking. Now I am more and more of an opinion that the best way
1497:
of unique editors having posts that haven't yet been archived. Some pages (certain RfAs) have over 500 unique signatures. Imagine if all of these users had a picture in their signature. That's no longer "expected load" - that's insanity in my opinion. And yes, unless any image used in a signature was
1469:
In the context of
Knowledge (XXG), denial-of-service refers to the ability to misuse MediaWiki features to unduly waste server or network resources. For example, we used to be able to view up to 5000 contributions for an editor, but that was reduced to 500 to avoid DOS attacks. Similarly, Lua modules
1338:
Although most editors find prior discussion, especially at well-developed pages, very helpful, directly editing these pages is permitted by
Knowledge (XXG)'s policies. Consequently, you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the
277:
I don't see that as a character set issue. It's just a specific instance of the general problem of some editors choosing to mislead their colleagues by displaying as their username something which is not their username. If the two don't match, then the problem is the non-matching, not the character
1773:
As with images, there are an awful lot of people who talk about bright signature backgrounds being obnoxious/distracting/whatnot, but when it actually comes down to an RfC people seem loath to prohibit much of anything. If anything, we should ditch orange/purple examples. Just because there's not an
1614:
how misuse of some
Unicode characters imitating the various typefaces (usually valid for use as math symbols etc.) can be harmful for screen reader users in tweets, but it applies to us as well. (While there are no uses of this on this page, I have noticed some on village pumps.) More generally, use
1184:
Consequently, you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made. Instead, you should give a substantive reason for challenging it and, if one hasn't already been started, open a discussion to identify the
1135:
The focus here was on the opposite concern: if we require the full username to be present in a signature, won't that create problems with non-Latin usernames, such as it being hard for other users to keep various users with the same non-Latin scripts apart, or such as that other users won't know how
1006:
Unrelated to the raw data-vs-anonymized reports question, a few years ago, they set up the corporate cloud to auto-delete everything six months after an employee quit (unless there was manual intervention, which pretty much only seemed to happen for Legal and HR). It's arranged better now, but, due
995:
in which a new user says things like she can't figure out who wrote anything on the talk page or even be certain what the talk page is for (around the 7-minute mark). Notice that she is only reading the page at that point; there cannot be any question about how many tildes to type to create her own
645:
Thank you for sharing your perspective (and for your work), this is full of great points to think about. I never thought about newbies believing that signature colours could mean something (fancy sigs only just started to become fashionable back when I was a newbie), but now that you point it out it
450:
First, we need to distinguish between those we consider "constructive" users and those who are not. This has to do with edit motivation. It's not about vandalism - many, many great editors started as vandals. Think a POV pusher vs a gnome. A gamergator who is only here to shout "BIAS" isn't going
364:
and our many implicit behavioural norms must be a nightmare to navigate for a newbie. That makes it good practice to avoid jargon, but forbidding experienced editors to use shortcuts when talking to each other clearly isn't an option. Enforcing uniform signature rules seems unlikely in my opinion to
1719:
I agree that it'd be a good idea to give all users an option to view all signatures with plain formatting, and I even think that making custom sigs opt-in would be mostly fine. That said, as someone to whom the above accessibility concerns apply, I can say confidently that I don't give a hoot about
874:
You've demonstrated nothing, and you still haven't linked the study. If it truly exists as you're claiming, it should be trivial for you to find and link it. The fact you're refusing to do so (when you've had more than ample time) and instead trying to paint me as the bad guy doesn't help your case
671:
There are a lot of things that can be done. A good thing would be for there to be an obvious visual marker (like an icon) to tell the user that they are looking at a signature. Most software uses an avatar image for this, but
Wikipedians go apeshit if you suggest such a thing. There might be a way
562:
discoverability but spoiler it starts with "why are there two selected tabs") - if they manage to even get into the technical side of the conversation, there will, indeed, be an "ah-ha!" moment because they will see that it is "like editing the page" so that's good at least but then we come to Wile
306:
in your signature, not specifically your username. So long as
Praxicidae and other active editors view everything ending with -cidae as Praxicdae's name, everything is fine. While I might support an RFC requiring an exact username (without HTML markup) in the signature text, I doubt it would find
1238:
Client-side performance and bandwidth usage should be taken into account, though. Trimming down the number of server requests is important for responsiveness, and reducing the amount of data transferred is helpful for lower throughput/capped data environments. (I realize this does not apply to the
1078:
Both these sections - and any more I think of starting - were intended to streamline the discussion into manageable chunks, given that the above conversation is such a sprawling mass of threads and tangents. I think that having focused sections helps in deciding what is working and what is not. As
804:
I know for a fact that the distinction between customized and non-customized signatures was explored and researched because one of the things I was excoriated by the community for was saying that custom signatures were not going to appear in Flow. There were many reasons behind that (and I talked
627:
It has to be the community that fixes this. You cannot count on the WMF ever doing anything for this. You cannot say "oh, there's a gadget". You must always assume the user has a stock system with Vector and Vector is terrible and a source of Many Woes. The
Foundation does not have the courage to
416:
to discuss things. That article talk pages aren't a good place to talk about the article probably isn't obvious) but I'm intrigued to hear that they and signatures are more effective at turning away newbies than, say, seeing their 100% factual and accurate edit reverted because they did not cite a
1788:
Yes. Maybe we can give examples in a different font, or in dark green or something, but nothing that is super flashy. PR's second example, however, is about user CSS, which is a topic that might be better to be covered elsewhere altogether. Perhaps the "Customizing how you see your signature" and
1576:
For colour-blind users and users without an ability to use the mouse, having a consistent and distinctive colour for links is critical because
Knowledge (XXG) is only distinguishing links by their colour. Without actions like hovering, the only colours for this to our users are blue and red. User
1502:
be a way for a denial of service attack. Just upload a much larger file in the place of one that's used in a signature, and instantly increase server load anytime anyone loads a page that user had ever signed. Do that enough, and it would potentially overload the connections and cause a denial of
845:
care what the new user experience is like, and in fact I've done what I can to make it easier for new folk - and if well-done studies show that custom signatures (like mine) are a barrier for them, then dog-gone it I'll remove mine (or at a minimum I'll put the default
Username (talk) back at the
442:
I dunno if you're familiar with who I am or my work in the past but for like five years I was senior designer at the WMF and my entire raison d'etre was talk pages and communication systems and editor retention. I have literally spent thousands and thousands of hours researching and watching how
1307:
years ago, and whilst the two templates preceding the line "Images of any kind must not be used in signatures for the following reasons" have both been amended since then, the eight-point bulleted list following has not changed by even one character. Indeed, one of those two templates explicitly
907:
It's quite odd to me that the WMF, an organization based on transparency and open access to information, would intentionally delete data that's relevant to its projects. But I accept that since you don't work there anymore it may be harder to find for you. Showing the actual study that said that
746:
Yep, as I said, in all of the other methods I listed, the username is conveyed separately, and as you've noted previously, in standard locations where it's easily accessible before reading the message. If the reply tool from the talk pages project becomes sufficiently popular, then it may become
481:
worried that they are doing something bad, or going to harm the encyclopedia. They will often try to find out if they're doing bad by looking up stuff on their own but that's rarely useful. It is important to understand that at this point in their heads, Knowledge (XXG) is still a "system" or a
1205:
Technically, an image in a signature will not affect the servers much (if at all); the server sends the HTML for the link, the slow-down is going to be on the client side (rendering lots of images, especially if the html for the image doesn't include height and width tags). Emoji images are...
1097:
I don't think anyone's seriously proposing removing the colour and fonts and HTML code from signatures and forcing everyone to use the default signature, which I've managed for five years. Adding two letters to a signature should not be that big a deal. If editors are after a bit of pizzazz and
968:
said earlier "This is a very high kill ratio point; roughly half of the people just stop right here. They close the window and move on." If you look at the number of people who open the wikitext editing window in a discussion namespace vs the number who post a comment, I believe it's more like
492:(Side note that the Mobile Interface is a terrible travesty and should be burnt with fire. Mobile does everything in its power to hide the existence of talk pages, and new users never, ever understand pings or see "you have new messages" and interpret that correctly. So there's that to chew on.)
1112:
As someone with a non Roman username, I am against anything that would require me to display Roman transliteration in signature. That would more confusing to new users as to which one is the actual username, confusion when pinging and the like. I spend most of my time on
Knowledge (XXG) fixing
710:
It's a reflection on changing times. Signature files come from a Usenet/email/Unix tradition, and is a place for creativity; however with Usenet/email, the actual username is conveyed separately in metadata to establish identity. Today, web-based bulletin boards and social messaging apps are
1571:
on it. I believe this issue needs more exploring, the notes below attempt to do so. Some of the notes below are directly inspired by signatures/discussions here, but I made an effort to not name and shame anyone. (Note about words: ‘users’ in the following text means everyone, and not just
991:, "the data" is video recordings of humans trying the software. Back when most of that research was done, the WMF didn't usually get permission to release the individual user testing videos. So you can't have all of the raw data, because privacy. However, you can have some of it, such as
1675:
For the lack of anything better to say, this, times 100. I like the idea that custom signatures ought to be an opt-in enhancement, maybe a gadget. I'm envisioning a world where custom sigs are an opt-in preference, but we opt in every existing account. Logged-out users shouldn't see them.
1126:
446:
At one point I was structuring this problem in a "1 to 100" view, which was thinking about the edit count journey, the goal being to remove as many obstacles between a user making their first edit and their 100th (that being when we saw that being a Wikipedian either took or it did not
124:
It is generally helpful to have a signature that has parts that others can ctrl-F for. And for non-Latin usernames, it is helpful to have a Latin nickname for the user. However, if a signature with non-Latin symbols breaks current guidelines, we should fix the guidelines, as there is
1649:
text in their signatures, used underlines in their links, did not abuse Unicode symbols, etc. But I think that having those issues in the first place is a strong argument that if you want your signature to be inclusive and accessible (as, I think, most of us should), you should just
837:, well, I care. And I know we don't agree on everything here, but I'd certainly like to see the evidence for what you're saying is true. Something not appearing in a planned feature doesn't mean it was actually studied - if it was, you should be able to show us the result that says
969:
three-quarters of new editors, at least if they open the entire talk page rather than a section. (Accurately detecting a reply vs non-reply edit inside a section turns out to be harder than a non-MediaWiki dev would expect, especially when most of them don't sign their posts.)
1122:
502:
as the editor, are bafflingly hard to use. They have so many counter-intuitive systems and broken metaphors that new, productive users splatter against them and are ground to a paste. This is, without a fucking doubt, the single largest hurdle to gaining and keeping new
412:: OK, I think I'd like to know more about what exactly you are referring to here (it is always good to learn when I am wrong). I know that talk pages are difficult (having to indent and sign manually is bizarre, not to mention that it is very difficult to even figure out
563:
E. Coyote's Wild West Fun Ride and all of the misery inherent in trying to figure out what the colons mean or stars and what's the fucking difference between wait what the fuck this is a hashtag now? And all this is before we even have to read, parse, and sign the post.
819:
By the way, even if I dropped seventeen gigabytes of studies about this on your lap, it wouldn't mean shit. The community has never cared about what data has to say about these things. It only ever looks for reasons to ignore findings and keep doing what it's doing.
1636:
Not in English Knowledge (XXG), thankfully, but for wikis generally: images should have alternative text, especially if they link to other pages (including file pages). If they link to other pages, alternative text should describe the purpose of a link, for example
936:
Generally it is because of attitudes like yours that the WMF has such a bad reputation amongst users here. So if your goal is to distance yourself from them, you are going the wrong way about it. Either provide the details requested above or cease the bloviating.
1720:
what color someone's talk page signature is, or if the font is ugly, et cetera. I may think less of their graphic design skills, but it certainly doesn't bother me to the extent that I think they should be forced to express themselves in a way I find acceptable.
1626:. 16 out of 66 uses of font-size (thankfully, by just one user) on this page make it harder to increase font size of their signature to readable levels, with the same signature also having a smaller font size than is recommended there as a baseline for content.
1275:. Whichever venue is selected, you should ideally leave a note at the other one directing people to the discussion. When the policy change is agreed, the change may be made, and the edit summary should include a link to the discussion concerned. Notice how in
417:
source and someone thought it might be vandalism. Or waiting 4 months for the AFC review of their article and then getting an incomprehensible "not notable" decline. Anyway, I'm getting a bit offtopic so if you want to reply on my talk page please do so :) —
332:: as i replied above, creating readily-avoidable types of "insider jargon" like this is a well-known type of barrier to new entrants. The very fact that you qualify your comments by referring to "active editors" describes a problem in the shape of an
1361:
Talk page discussion typically precedes substantive changes to policy. Changes may be made if there are no objections or if discussion shows there is consensus for the change. Minor edits to improve formatting, grammar, and clarity may be made at any
595:- knows to type ~~~~~~~~~~, click the "signature" button (because of ton of reasons, not the least of which is that the icon is terrible), or read the "Remember to sign your posts" message (This knowledge doesn't creep in until around edit 75 or so).
1609:
For screen reader users, the most problematic custom signature would not be the one using non-Latin characters (or at least it shouldn’t be one using them), but the one employing many graphic symbols or various text substitute symbols.
106:
How does a signature with non-Latin symbols break current guidelines? Is forcing changes on an editor in this situation necessary? And how do we balance the right to use a first language with the guidelines on signatures and usernames?
1018:
BTW, I think you can rely on Jorm's recollections. I've never known him to be dishonest, and he's been saying the same things about these studies since they happened. (Caveat: You should not trust him on the question of whether
602:
Anyways. They're scanning for a signature to copy. Finding one is also incredibly difficult because in Wikitext Mode they're a blob of gobbledygook. So what they do now - always - is try to search for a User Name that they
1187:), however, more importantly I'd like to see a diff from a WMF sysadmin saying that images in signatures constitutes unbearable load for the WMF servers and are akin to DOS attacks. The claim appears highly dubious at best.
779:
that's the problem - along with having to indent manually and things like that - not the fact that some people have customized ones. But again, curious if you can link to the study so we can see for ourselves. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez
1430:
Technical note, it is not just about the servers. Users without much ram may experience issues rendering on their browsers also. Pages with hundreds of small images can grind a browser on a low resource system to a halt.
889:
I just told you that all that shit was deleted or moved, or it was never made public, or a million things. You are demanding that I produce some magic fucking artifact before you will even consider the idea that you are
586:
common thing people do in this case is scan backwards and look for wikitext that most resembles what they think is a "signature" (and the key marker here for nearly everyone is actually the "--") and then cut and paste
102:
I want this section to focus on the use of non-Latin script in signatures. This could be a stylistic decision, or a reflection on the language spoken by the editor, or a way to indicate ethnicity, or a similar reason.
1662:
forward is the opposite: to have some means for Wikimedians to customise signatures without them showing up in page code and without the explicit consent of a user. There must be some ways to write a script for that.
1543:
1454:
due to their device capability or internet speed/reliability (something not mentioned in the current list, but probably should be), is distinct from the alleged damage to WMF servers, currently mentioned in the list.
675:
Moving signatures to a consistent spot is probably the best thing to do. That would aid in scanning and recognition of the affordance as well as aiding the user to neural map that they're looking at a conversation.
841:(not just the quad~ markup) is a barrier to entry for new folks. I think you'd sway a lot of people away from custom signatures if you could actually show a study that shows it's a barrier to entry - many people
794:
To a new users there is no difference between a custom signature, a red signature, a blue signature, or any other signature. They are all an impenetrable code. They do not care because there is no consistency.
451:
to be constructive but they'll jump through hoops to figure out how to yell. We don't care about those people; they'll be blocked soon and never, ever become productive. So we focus on people trying to help.
1492:
The key here seems to be "expected load". Forums that allow custom images in user profiles on posts generally display about 20 at a time (by default). Knowledge (XXG), on the other hand, has talk pages with
598:(And yeah, before some jamoke comes in and says "I figured it out right off it was easy" yeah yeah yeah tell your story walking maybe get a cookie or something yer a fuckin' geeenyous" <wank motion: -->
489:
Usually it was around edit number 10 than a new user comes in contact with another Wikipedian. It is at this point that they learn about the existence of talk pages and have to understand how to use them.
1654:. And I hope that this write-up will persuade at least some to do so. (And I sure hope that no one thinks that these are the issues that needs to be fixed by the users that experience them, and not us.)
243:
The question is the other way, whether a user with a non-ASCII username can have an entirely-ASCII signature. This is more appropriate for Hebrew/Arabic/Indic usernames, but as an example; could I have
1594:
For screen reader users and users without an ability to use the mouse, custom signatures frequently do not describe the link targets understandably without having to hover or inspect their URL. This is
610:
It is at this point, nearly every time, that people quit. They just throw their hands in the air and walk away, never to return. It had a kill ratio of something like 97%. It's probably worse now.
1633:
that use simple colours. We need the opinion of those users to know for sure whether they had issues with the way our talk pages are structured to know more, but it is something to keep in mind.
1339:
change before it was made. Instead, you should give a substantive reason for challenging it and, if one hasn't already been started, open a discussion to identify the community's current views.
462:. The third largest to edit zero was finding the edit button. Parsing wikitext was surprisingly not difficult (and anyone who says "women don't get it b/c they're not technical" is a fucking
1584:
Similarly, blue or red should not be used in a signature for text as a courtesy to keep the expectations of users consistent and to stop people without a mouse from expecting it to be a link.
1511:
prominence - as an example, a user recently attempted to add the WHO flag to their signature. That's more prominence than any set of colors could ever give. While I agree with the fact that
725:
A thing to think about when making comparisons to Usenet or Email is that people read posts there already knowing who the sender is. You know who is speaking before you reach the signature.
1587:
For colour blind users, if a link employs a background colour (also known as highlighting), the contrast of link text needs to be checked with a background colour, as already described by
631:(Another thing that could be done locally is move the signatures to the top of the posts with some clever css. Maybe I'll get high one night and write that; see if I can get it to work.)
555:
Let's say they get past that, though. Let's say they think "oh, there's some code to this, and I don't understand it now, but I'll figure it out later." (I know that's how it was for me).
1645:
There might be more issues that might be listed, these are just the ones that I can remember off the top of my head. Some issues above can be fixed in some cases if users applied more
797:
I don't work there anymore and the last time I tried to find any of my research or anything it had been moved or deleted or whatever. You need to understand that I'm talking about a
1622:
For users with low vision, as well as anyone increasing standard font size, signatures should have any text size changes relative to the original font size, as already described by
576:
Watching someone discover that Knowledge (XXG) doesn't automatically sign their posts is soul-crushing thing to watch. It's just the Price Is Right's sad trumpet noise on repeat.
775:
are the number one barrier? It seems more likely to me that 1) the study likely didn't differentiate between different problems with signatures, and 2) if it did, it's probably
1789:"Overriding custom signatures" should be moved to the bottom of the page, or to a different page altogether. (This page needs to decide whether it is a guideline or a howto). —
1806:
While I agree that people should be able to set an option in their preferences to see plain signatures, I nonetheless resent the implication that my signature is "obnoxious".
1549:
Ideally, a page should have no more than 100 images (regardless of how small). Note if you have more than 10,000 images in your page, the page will be inaccessible on mobile.
391:
say the exact opposite of what you just claimed. Moreover, one merely needs to look at historical examples of how various communities have survived and thrived to see that.
624:
is enforce signature readability while the user is first encountering talk pages (also make all user page links blue, regardless of whether or not there is a page there).
495:(I could fill the Mariana Trench with things that can kill a user at this point, mostly about templates and the like, but we want to stay looking at the software)
1615:
of various Unicode characters will either lead to your signature being too verbose (as in the previous link) or lead to it not being read out for some at all.
1202:
While I no longer work for the Foundation, when I did we had a policy (if unwritten) that local Wikis should not make policy decisions based on expected load.
992:
1271:
It's an established principle that you don't make unilateral changes to agreed policies. You discuss them first, either on the associated talk page or at
558:
If they then manage to figure out how to edit the talk page (and holy shit do not get me started about how shitty Monobook and Vector are with regards to
801:
of studies and questions, many videos and observations. Statistics grinding. There was a whole team at one point who would answer questions like this.
1401:
a change by all means; but if you do make an undiscussed change, don't expect there to be no objections, and when an objection does occur do not word
1691:
89:
84:
72:
67:
59:
1379:
are sometimes the best way to adapt and improve the encyclopedia. In this case, "bold" refers to boldness of idea; such ideas are most commonly
1300:
350:
292:
233:
1755:
the CSS for obnoxious purple signatures. Perhaps we should extend the policy to username colours too, such that colour may not be used to
1470:
are limited to 10 seconds and 50 megabytes. Those limitations are imposed by the WMF but I guess that whoever added the DOS rationale for
1384:
1376:
1369:
was not made to improve formatting, grammar, and clarity, it was a substantive change to policy. This subsection begins with a link to
1967:
1710:
Yes! And thank you for writing this. Aesthetic preferences might be important but accessibility must be the Foundation's #1 priority.
613:
So the tiniest of changes here - the absolute smallest of consistencies - will reduce that kill ratio by a lot. We need to be doing
1962:
1292:
522:
fiction. There simply is no mental model that they can be mapped to in order to increase the likelihood of understanding. There is
151:
I will personally fight until I am a bloody nub to prevent any policies that limit non-Latin characters anywhere in the interface.--
973:
1977:
1972:
526:
a "oh, it's like email" or "oh, it's like instant messenger" or "oh it's like a forum" or "oh it's like talking to R2-D2" moment.
173:
2101:
1902:
1763:
1460:
1346:
1229:
1192:
1150:
1079:
detailed in this section, above, we can see how having hard and fast rules about non-Latin characters is a non-starter. I like
573:. (Take a look at the number one bot with edits and you'll see that it's SineBot. That should tell you something right there.)
959:
The Reply tool works better – but you can't get this kind of stark differential if the old method only had a 50% failure rate.
1992:
566:(This is a very high kill ratio point; roughly half of the people just stop right here. They close the window and move on.)
1028:
466:
because at the time we were doing these studies women made up like 75% of the blogger population and blogging software
394:
Signatures and talk pages are the Number One barrier to entry for new editors. Everything else is a fart in the wind.
318:
259:
47:
17:
430:
378:
142:
1474:
had that in mind because replacing an image with a massive file then purging a hundred pages would degrade services.
1611:
2469:
2449:
2161:
2091:
2012:
1887:
1759:
1456:
1342:
1225:
1188:
1015:
was lost to the "dusty hard drive" problem, except for content that was uploaded to Commons or posted on the wikis.
181:
I don't see any way in which non-Latin symbols cause any problems or break any guidelines. Take two example cases:
38:
1711:
1544:
mediawiki.org’s Recommendations for mobile friendly articles on Wikimedia wikis § Limit number of images in a page
1519:
reason, we should reconsider. I disagree with the changes made and think the policy is fine as is. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (
346:
288:
229:
1515:, that doesn't mean we can't include that as a reason images aren't allowed - it just means that if it were the
977:
548:
kill value. Users find the signature system so utterly confusing that they decide that they don't want to have
2051:
2031:
1937:
1837:
1391:—which may not be obvious to those unfamiliar with the background. In these cases, it is also often better to
1221:
443:
these things work on Knowledge (XXG) and across all its many languages and the difficulties inherent in there.
2121:
1922:
1744:
1255:
Honestly the real killer here is going to be someone linking a 50 megabyte file in a 32x32 pixel square. --
1024:
972:
If you are interested in re-arranging the page with CSS, I think you can hope to achieve ~99% success. The
955:
942:
579:
Okay so now they know they need to sign their posts. Usually because a "helpful" Wikipedian yelled at them.
1822:
1752:
1748:
1596:
1383:
to best formulate their implementation. The admonition "be careful" is especially important in relation to
1524:
1098:
individuality, they can achieve that very easily through HTML (and frankly would be far more successful).
913:
880:
851:
785:
333:
165:
Non latin characters are fine, considering that many people's usernames are made of non-latin characters.
1388:
1356:
1311:
192:
188:
2464:
2255:
1699:
1681:
1286:
951:
I'm going to clock in for a few minutes and respond to a few things here, since I have some information.
477:
the killer to productive editors. People are good with that. They don't mind it. At first, they are
212:
208:
202:
198:
660:
Will 90% solve the problem? I don't know. It would have to be studied, maybe. it definitely won't
337:
279:
220:
1370:
2295:
2036:
1812:
1776:
1658:
1415:
1323:
1145:
1088:
1008:
981:
114:
1392:
1333:
1179:
1479:
1433:
1240:
938:
748:
712:
893:
I haven't worked there in six years. When I did, I had to be your work monkey. I'm not anymore.
569:
Most people assume that the software will sign the message for them. Because why wouldn't you?
361:
2480:
2285:
2185:
2151:
2002:
1882:
1798:
1783:
1767:
1732:
1714:
1703:
1685:
1669:
1630:
1568:
1556:
1537:
1528:
1520:
1483:
1464:
1441:
1419:
1350:
1327:
1264:
1248:
1233:
1215:
1196:
1157:
1130:
1107:
1092:
1032:
1012:
988:
946:
931:
917:
909:
902:
884:
876:
869:
855:
847:
829:
814:
789:
781:
756:
741:
720:
703:
685:
655:
640:
529:
This is because of a shit ton of reasons which are really obvious but the number one - with a
434:
403:
382:
355:
324:
297:
265:
238:
176:
160:
146:
118:
1512:
1114:
201:
wants to also display the latin-alphabet version of their name: Hasan. They can have a sig:
2141:
2116:
1987:
1917:
1695:
1677:
1387:, where key parts may be phrased in a particular way to reflect a very hard-won, knife-edge
1282:
1244:
1103:
752:
716:
1578:
1552:
I believe this number is counting image tags (file declarations), and not separate images.
1272:
691:
312:
253:
2315:
2146:
2131:
1997:
1942:
1794:
1020:
699:
651:
426:
374:
166:
138:
1380:
747:
possible to associate more metadata with each comment and provide greater functionality.
2290:
2265:
2437:
2320:
2250:
2245:
2240:
2235:
2171:
2106:
2056:
2046:
2022:
1907:
1877:
1842:
1832:
1817:
1728:
1651:
1408:
1316:
1260:
1211:
1175:
1139:
1084:
927:
898:
865:
825:
810:
737:
681:
636:
399:
302:
And but this is why I think the consensus is not with you. You need to represent your
156:
110:
439:
This is totally a tangent but it's relevant to this discussion so I'll put it in here.
2463:
Surely if you're making an audacious joke sig, it should have user rights in it too?
2086:
1872:
1534:
1475:
1341:
The claim -- that images in signatures will DOS the WMF servers -- is just not true.
2230:
2215:
1206:
nothing. They're air. The client and the server won't care in any way about them.
1117:, which among other things involves fixing bad html in signatures. See the stats in
387:
I am telling you, right now, that 100% of the data and studies that I have seen and
191:
wants to also display the Arabic version of their name: حسن. They can have a sig:
2475:
2310:
2305:
2300:
2210:
2190:
2156:
2081:
2066:
2061:
2041:
2007:
1867:
1852:
1847:
1827:
1623:
1588:
2195:
2166:
2111:
2096:
2076:
2071:
2017:
1912:
1892:
1862:
1857:
1099:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
1751:
we give people the exact CSS needed to make an obnoxious orange signature, and
1355:
Since you have been quoting from PGBOLD (twice now), you will also be aware of
1239:
specific edit in question, but would be a new reason to add to the rationale.)
329:
308:
272:
249:
2275:
2225:
2220:
2126:
1947:
1927:
1790:
1080:
695:
647:
422:
370:
134:
2425:
2205:
1722:
1666:
1553:
1256:
1207:
965:
923:
894:
861:
834:
821:
806:
733:
677:
632:
409:
395:
152:
591:
and make changes. They get this part right a lot, actually. But no one -
360:
This is correct, but as with everything, there are costs and benefits. Our
1646:
1220:
Re first sentence, I think there's also an equivalent community essay at
2270:
2260:
1332:
Your assertion directly contradicts the community established policy at
1003:
at the point that she says she can't figure out who posted the contents.
552:
to do with these crazies. Right here. This is the point of inflection.
2200:
1375:
Knowledge (XXG) does not "enshrine" old practices: bold changes to its
458:
that it was possible to edit the encyclopedia. The second largest was
1952:
1932:
1897:
1694:. Probably a dead-end but I hope it moves the conversation forward.
1616:
1118:
2280:
732:
lets the user know who is speaking before the gist of the message.
571:
Every other software in the world signs posts for you automatically
248:
in my signature in lieu of my username? (not that I would, but 等等)
1982:
954:
672:
to inject an icon visually using a :before css rule or something.
2136:
1957:
1407:
in a way that implies that the objector (me) is in the wrong. --
1567:
For all the recent talk here, I could find only one mention of
1774:
appetite to prevent it doesn't mean we should encourage it. —
211:
just wants to display their username, then they can sign as :
25:
1301:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Signatures/Archive 9#Promotion to policy
1178:
would like to give a substantive reason for their revert per
628:
push software changes to fix it. It has to be the community.
1631:
sometimes recommended to have simple and consistent layouts
1315:
and I saw no consensus for ProcrastinatingReader's edit. --
922:
You think the WMF is transparent? My sweet summer child.
1597:
an accessibility violation (link to WCAG 2.4.4 info page)
1579:
an accessibility violation (link to WCAG 1.4.1 info page)
984:) only fails to detect a signature in about 1% of edits.
1447:
1403:
1365:
1296:
1277:
219:
Where is the issue or problem that needs discussion? --
454:
The first and largest obstacle (edit "zero") was even
1757:
give undue prominence to a given user's contribution
1542:There is a somewhat related problem described on
1371:Knowledge (XXG):Be bold#Knowledge (XXG) namespace
1665:(Please ping me when replying to this section.)
1503:service. Furthermore, while colors can give the
771:I'm curious as to if you have a study that says
728:Further, the way quoting in those mediums works
1659:unformat.js (links to Russian Knowledge (XXG))
1612:Accessibility expert Adrian Roselli describes
8:
690:I've made a tree-hugging hippie proposal at
1624:text size guidelines in the Manual of Style
1603:
1589:contrast guidelines in the Manual of Style
976:work is slowly improving matters, and the
1617:Accessibility expert Leonie Watson tells
668:but I wouldn't think it a silver bullet.
1692:User:Enterprisey/signature rfc drafting
974:mw:New requirements for user signatures
1756:
1629:For users on autistic spectrum, it is
1374:
1360:
1337:
1309:
1183:
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
1657:For years, I have used a user script
1619:that this can be the case for emojis.
510:other communication method in use in
498:Talk pages, even though they are the
7:
2418:888 ^ `" "888E
1513:we shouldn't worry about performance
1652:keep it simple and straightforward
1310:Changes made to it should reflect
24:
1359:, which precedes it on the page:
1023:should be served with rice. ;-)
2474:
2355:\. . `?)X. `888I 888.
2345:' `*88888~ %8888:u@88N
2335:f `888888x./ @8Ne. .u
2319:
2314:
2309:
2304:
2299:
2294:
2289:
2284:
2279:
2274:
2269:
2264:
2259:
2254:
2249:
2244:
2239:
2234:
2229:
2224:
2219:
2214:
2209:
2204:
2199:
2194:
2189:
2184:
2175:
2170:
2165:
2160:
2155:
2150:
2145:
2140:
2135:
2130:
2125:
2120:
2115:
2110:
2105:
2100:
2095:
2090:
2085:
2080:
2075:
2070:
2065:
2060:
2055:
2050:
2045:
2040:
2035:
2030:
2021:
2016:
2011:
2006:
2001:
1996:
1991:
1986:
1981:
1976:
1971:
1966:
1961:
1956:
1951:
1946:
1941:
1936:
1931:
1926:
1921:
1916:
1911:
1906:
1901:
1896:
1891:
1886:
1881:
1876:
1871:
1866:
1861:
1856:
1851:
1846:
1841:
1836:
1831:
1826:
1821:
1816:
1811:
1507:of prominence, images can imply
1303:). That edit was made more than
538:before they even open the editor
29:
2396:.xx. 88888X '*88888Nu88P
1393:discuss potential changes first
664:, and it will almost certainly
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Signatures
1446:I agree, and I mentioned this
839:custom signatures specifically
777:having to manually sign at all
473:Anyways: getting reverted is
1:
1602:For screen reader users, but
1498:automatically protected, it
1073:Back to the original subject
620:The tiniest thing we can do
615:absolutely everything we can
2376:X8888 ~ 888I 888I
939:Only in death does duty end
846:beginning). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (
506:Talk pages do not resemble
2497:
1739:Text for not having images
1381:raised and discussed first
1185:community's current views.
996:signature, because she is
617:to reduce this kill point.
98:Focus on: non-Latin script
2459:05:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
2435:"8888 8% '8: -->
1450:, but issues for certain
1224:. A sound principle IMO.
1033:00:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
129:with non-Latin symbols. —
2481:05:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
2386:488888 uW888L 888'
1799:13:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
1784:12:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
1768:08:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
1733:02:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
1715:01:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
1704:22:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
1686:22:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
1670:20:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
1557:20:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
1538:16:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
1529:08:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
1484:09:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
1465:00:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
1442:23:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
1420:07:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
1351:23:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
1328:23:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
1265:22:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
1249:22:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
1234:21:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
1216:21:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
1197:20:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
1158:19:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
1131:12:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
1108:08:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
1093:09:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
993:this screencap recording
947:19:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
932:19:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
918:19:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
903:19:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
885:19:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
870:19:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
856:19:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
830:19:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
815:19:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
805:about that just above).
790:18:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
757:23:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
742:22:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
721:22:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
704:22:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
686:21:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
656:20:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
641:19:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
482:"program" and decidedly
460:finding something to fix
435:18:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
404:17:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
383:08:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
356:23:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
325:23:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
298:23:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
266:23:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
239:23:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
177:20:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
161:19:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
147:19:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
119:18:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
1385:policies and guidelines
1377:policies and guidelines
860:Quod est demonstratum.
1563:Accessibility concerns
1551:
1404:your counter-objection
960:
334:In-group and out-group
2447:`"888x:-" "
2406:'*8888. '88888: -->
1760:ProcrastinatingReader
1547:
1457:ProcrastinatingReader
1343:ProcrastinatingReader
1226:ProcrastinatingReader
1189:ProcrastinatingReader
1001:reading the talk page
958:
875:here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (
42:of past discussions.
2327::8**888888X. :: -->
1743:Can someone explain
1119:Firefly Linter count
389:personally conducted
2451:{ c o n t r i b s }
2417:88888 '8888: -->
2366:~ 888I 888I
1604:not limited to them
1572:registered users.)
500:exact same software
189:User:Example Hassan
1747:to me? Given that
1025:Whatamidoing (WMF)
961:
2423:`888 *8E
2402:888& .888E
1569:web accessibility
1440:
1439:
1299:(now archived to
1123:ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ
773:custom signatures
354:
296:
237:
209:User:Example حسن
199:User:Example حسن
95:
94:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
2488:
2479:x9 EM MM Rv ECo
2478:
2456:
2452:
2448:
2444:
2440:
2436:
2432:
2428:
2424:
2419:
2414:
2413:*888" 888&
2411:
2408:
2403:
2400:
2397:
2393:
2390:
2387:
2383:
2380:
2377:
2373:
2370:
2367:
2365:`~=-^ X88: -->
2362:
2359:
2356:
2352:
2349:
2346:
2342:
2339:
2336:
2332:
2329:
2328:.d``
2324:
2323:
2318:
2313:
2308:
2303:
2298:
2293:
2288:
2283:
2278:
2273:
2268:
2263:
2258:
2253:
2248:
2243:
2238:
2233:
2228:
2223:
2218:
2213:
2208:
2203:
2198:
2193:
2188:
2180:
2179:
2178:
2174:
2169:
2164:
2159:
2154:
2149:
2144:
2139:
2134:
2129:
2124:
2119:
2114:
2109:
2104:
2099:
2094:
2089:
2084:
2079:
2074:
2069:
2064:
2059:
2054:
2049:
2044:
2039:
2034:
2026:
2025:
2020:
2015:
2010:
2005:
2000:
1995:
1990:
1985:
1980:
1975:
1970:
1965:
1960:
1955:
1950:
1945:
1940:
1935:
1930:
1925:
1920:
1915:
1910:
1905:
1900:
1895:
1890:
1885:
1880:
1875:
1870:
1865:
1860:
1855:
1850:
1845:
1840:
1835:
1830:
1825:
1820:
1815:
1781:
1779:
1640:
1438:
1432:
1411:
1406:
1368:
1319:
1280:
1156:
1153:
1148:
1142:
345:
343:
341:
321:
315:
287:
285:
283:
276:
262:
256:
228:
226:
224:
171:
81:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
2496:
2495:
2491:
2490:
2489:
2487:
2486:
2485:
2457:
2454:
2450:
2446:
2442:
2438:
2434:
2430:
2426:
2421:
2416:
2412:
2409:
2405:
2401:
2398:
2395:
2391:
2388:
2385:
2381:
2378:
2375:
2371:
2368:
2364:
2360:
2357:
2354:
2350:
2347:
2344:
2340:
2337:
2334:
2330:
2326:
2182:
2176:
2028:
1810:
1777:
1775:
1741:
1638:
1565:
1409:
1402:
1373:where we find:
1364:
1317:
1276:
1172:
1151:
1146:
1140:
1137:
1091:
1075:
1021:Chili con carne
546:incredibly high
514:other software
339:
338:
319:
313:
311:(power~enwiki,
281:
280:
270:
260:
254:
252:(power~enwiki,
247:
222:
221:
167:
117:
100:
77:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2494:
2492:
2484:
2483:
2445:
2433:
2420:
2415:
2407:~ '88888F`
2404:
2394:
2384:
2374:
2363:
2353:
2343:
2333:
2325:
2181:
2027:
1809:
1807:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1778:Rhododendrites
1740:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1717:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1643:
1642:
1639:|alt=Talk page
1634:
1627:
1620:
1607:
1600:
1592:
1585:
1582:
1564:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1540:
1531:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1222:WP:PERFORMANCE
1203:
1171:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1087:
1074:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1016:
1013:mw:Growth team
1009:Steven Walling
1004:
985:
970:
962:
952:
891:
802:
795:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
726:
708:
707:
706:
673:
669:
629:
625:
618:
611:
608:
600:
596:
580:
577:
574:
567:
564:
556:
553:
544:. This has an
534:
527:
504:
496:
493:
490:
487:
486:a "community".
471:
452:
448:
444:
440:
392:
245:
217:
216:
215:
206:
196:
193:Example Hassan
183:
182:
179:
163:
149:
113:
99:
96:
93:
92:
87:
82:
75:
70:
65:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2493:
2482:
2477:
2473:
2472:
2468:
2467:
2462:
2461:
2460:
2453:
2441:
2429:
2389:.u./"888&
2361:d88E`"888E`
2322:
2317:
2312:
2307:
2302:
2297:
2292:
2287:
2282:
2277:
2272:
2267:
2262:
2257:
2252:
2247:
2242:
2237:
2232:
2227:
2222:
2217:
2212:
2207:
2202:
2197:
2192:
2187:
2173:
2168:
2163:
2158:
2153:
2148:
2143:
2138:
2133:
2128:
2123:
2118:
2113:
2108:
2103:
2098:
2093:
2088:
2083:
2078:
2073:
2068:
2063:
2058:
2053:
2048:
2043:
2038:
2033:
2024:
2019:
2014:
2009:
2004:
1999:
1994:
1989:
1984:
1979:
1974:
1969:
1964:
1959:
1954:
1949:
1944:
1939:
1934:
1929:
1924:
1919:
1914:
1909:
1904:
1899:
1894:
1889:
1884:
1879:
1874:
1869:
1864:
1859:
1854:
1849:
1844:
1839:
1834:
1829:
1824:
1819:
1814:
1808:
1800:
1796:
1792:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1780:
1772:
1771:
1770:
1769:
1765:
1761:
1758:
1754:
1750:
1746:
1738:
1734:
1731:
1730:
1725:
1724:
1718:
1716:
1713:
1709:
1705:
1701:
1697:
1693:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1683:
1679:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1668:
1663:
1660:
1655:
1653:
1648:
1635:
1632:
1628:
1625:
1621:
1618:
1613:
1608:
1605:
1601:
1598:
1593:
1590:
1586:
1583:
1580:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1570:
1562:
1558:
1555:
1550:
1545:
1541:
1539:
1536:
1532:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1506:
1501:
1496:
1491:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1473:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1437:
1436:
1429:
1428:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1405:
1400:
1396:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1378:
1372:
1367:
1363:
1358:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1335:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1314:
1313:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1291:
1288:
1284:
1279:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1204:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1181:
1177:
1169:
1159:
1154:
1149:
1143:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1077:
1076:
1072:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1017:
1014:
1010:
1005:
1002:
999:
994:
990:
986:
983:
979:
978:mw:Reply tool
975:
971:
967:
963:
957:
953:
950:
949:
948:
944:
940:
935:
934:
933:
929:
925:
921:
920:
919:
915:
911:
906:
905:
904:
900:
896:
892:
888:
887:
886:
882:
878:
873:
872:
871:
867:
863:
859:
858:
857:
853:
849:
844:
840:
836:
833:
832:
831:
827:
823:
818:
817:
816:
812:
808:
803:
800:
796:
793:
792:
791:
787:
783:
778:
774:
770:
758:
754:
750:
745:
744:
743:
739:
735:
731:
727:
724:
723:
722:
718:
714:
709:
705:
701:
697:
693:
689:
688:
687:
683:
679:
674:
670:
667:
663:
659:
658:
657:
653:
649:
644:
643:
642:
638:
634:
630:
626:
623:
619:
616:
612:
609:
606:
601:
597:
594:
590:
585:
581:
578:
575:
572:
568:
565:
561:
557:
554:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
532:
528:
525:
521:
517:
513:
509:
505:
501:
497:
494:
491:
488:
485:
480:
476:
472:
469:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
441:
438:
437:
436:
432:
428:
424:
420:
415:
411:
407:
406:
405:
401:
397:
393:
390:
386:
385:
384:
380:
376:
372:
368:
363:
359:
358:
357:
352:
348:
344:
335:
331:
328:
327:
326:
322:
316:
310:
305:
301:
300:
299:
294:
290:
286:
274:
269:
268:
267:
263:
257:
251:
242:
241:
240:
235:
231:
227:
218:
214:
210:
204:
200:
197:
194:
190:
187:
186:
185:
184:
180:
178:
175:
172:
170:
164:
162:
158:
154:
150:
148:
144:
140:
136:
132:
128:
127:nothing wrong
123:
122:
121:
120:
116:
112:
108:
104:
97:
91:
88:
86:
83:
80:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
2470:
2465:
2458:
2443:4888~ J8%
2431:.dWi `88E
2399:d888" Y888*"
2392:888E 888E
2382:888E 888E
2372:888E 888E
1805:
1742:
1727:
1721:
1664:
1656:
1644:
1566:
1548:
1516:
1508:
1504:
1499:
1494:
1471:
1451:
1434:
1398:
1357:WP:TALKFIRST
1304:
1289:
1173:
1170:DOS attacks?
1011:and the old
1000:
997:
989:Berchanhimez
842:
838:
798:
776:
772:
729:
665:
661:
621:
614:
604:
592:
588:
583:
570:
559:
549:
545:
542:just reading
541:
537:
530:
523:
519:
516:ever written
515:
511:
507:
499:
483:
478:
474:
467:
463:
459:
455:
418:
413:
388:
366:
303:
213:Example حسن
203:Example حسن
168:
130:
126:
109:
105:
101:
78:
43:
37:
2455:^"===*"`
2439:{ t a l k }
2427:{ u s e r }
2351:.ue888Nc..
2348:'"Y888k/"*P
2338:.@88b @88R
2183:.x88888x.
1696:Enterprisey
1690:I wrote up
1678:Enterprisey
1283:HJ Mitchell
1115:Lint errors
982:try it now!
518:in reality
307:consensus.
36:This is an
2422:`8888: -->
1505:appearance
540:. That's
342:HairedGirl
284:HairedGirl
225:HairedGirl
169:CaptainEek
90:Archive 16
85:Archive 15
79:Archive 14
73:Archive 13
68:Archive 12
60:Archive 10
2466:Vaticidal
2410:` "Y Y"
1745:this text
1472:no images
1389:consensus
1366:Your edit
1334:WP:PGBOLD
1312:consensus
1278:this edit
1180:WP:PGBOLD
1176:Redrose64
1141:Apaugasma
622:right now
605:recognize
2341:uL
1647:WAI-ARIA
1535:Levivich
1495:hundreds
1476:Johnuniq
1435:HighInBC
1293:contribs
1174:Perhaps
550:anything
351:contribs
293:contribs
278:sets. --
234:contribs
2471:prophet
2331:uL ..
1525:say hi!
1399:suggest
1308:states
1295:) used
1085:doktorb
914:say hi!
881:say hi!
852:say hi!
786:say hi!
536:That's
456:knowing
207:And if
205:(Hasan)
111:doktorb
39:archive
1712:Le Loy
1412:rose64
1320:rose64
1273:WP:VPP
1241:isaacl
1100:Sdrqaz
890:wrong.
749:isaacl
713:isaacl
692:WP:VPR
593:no one
531:bullet
503:users.
479:really
468:sucked
447:take).
427:कुस्मा
423:Кузьма
375:कुस्मा
371:Кузьма
362:jargon
347:(talk)
309:User:力
289:(talk)
250:User:力
230:(talk)
195:(حسن)
139:कुस्मा
135:Кузьма
2379:`888N
2358:Y888L
1791:Kusma
1700:talk!
1682:talk!
1500:could
1452:users
1362:time.
1305:seven
1297:a URL
1089:words
1081:Kusma
696:Kusma
648:Kusma
524:never
464:idiot
419:Kusma
414:where
367:Kusma
340:Brown
282:Brown
223:Brown
131:Kusma
115:words
16:<
2369:8888
1795:talk
1764:talk
1753:here
1749:here
1667:stjn
1554:stjn
1521:User
1517:only
1509:more
1480:talk
1461:talk
1448:here
1416:talk
1414:🌹 (
1397:So:
1347:talk
1324:talk
1322:🌹 (
1287:talk
1261:talk
1257:Jorm
1245:talk
1230:talk
1212:talk
1208:Jorm
1193:talk
1147:talk
1127:talk
1104:talk
1029:talk
998:just
966:Jorm
943:talk
928:talk
924:Jorm
910:User
899:talk
895:Jorm
877:User
866:talk
862:Jorm
848:User
835:Jorm
826:talk
822:Jorm
811:talk
807:Jorm
782:User
753:talk
738:talk
734:Jorm
730:also
717:talk
700:talk
682:talk
678:Jorm
666:help
662:hurt
652:talk
637:talk
633:Jorm
589:that
584:most
582:The
560:that
410:Jorm
400:talk
396:Jorm
336:. --
304:name
157:talk
153:Jorm
2029:.
1782:\\
1410:Red
1318:Red
799:lot
694:. —
512:any
508:any
484:not
475:not
349:• (
291:• (
232:• (
1797:)
1766:)
1723:jp
1702:)
1684:)
1546::
1527:)
1482:)
1463:)
1418:)
1349:)
1336:.
1326:)
1281:,
1263:)
1247:)
1232:)
1214:)
1195:)
1138:☿
1129:)
1106:)
1031:)
945:)
930:)
916:)
901:)
883:)
868:)
854:)
843:do
828:)
813:)
788:)
755:)
740:)
719:)
702:)
684:)
654:)
639:)
520:or
470:).
433:)
431:𐌺
429:·
425:·
402:)
381:)
379:𐌺
377:·
373:·
323:)
317:,
264:)
258:,
246:lì
159:)
145:)
143:𐌺
141:·
137:·
64:←
1793:(
1762:(
1729:g
1726:×
1698:(
1680:(
1641:.
1591:.
1581:.
1523:/
1478:(
1459:(
1395:.
1345:(
1290:·
1285:(
1259:(
1243:(
1228:(
1210:(
1191:(
1182:(
1155:)
1152:☉
1144:(
1125:(
1102:(
1027:(
987:@
980:(
964:@
941:(
926:(
912:/
897:(
879:/
864:(
850:/
824:(
809:(
784:/
780:(
751:(
736:(
715:(
698:(
680:(
650:(
635:(
607:.
599:)
421:(
408:@
398:(
369:(
353:)
330:力
320:ν
314:π
295:)
275::
273:力
271:@
261:ν
255:π
236:)
174:⚓
155:(
133:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.