User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Signatures

WP:SIG
I'm a bit curious, what do others think about treating images in signatures as a reason to oppose admin candidates? JoshuaZ 13:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * People sometimes use RfA as a platform regarding issues that are important to them. Some people are well aware of the strain on the already over burdened image servers that having images in signatures generates. For them, it's an important issue. It can be tied back to a person's ability to successfully enhance the project in the sense that if the user is inconsiderate enough to have images in their signature, they probably don't care too much about other negative impacts on the project. The missing link in that though is whether the candidate knows it has a negative impact. If they do, and they do it anyways, then certainly that could be a valid reason to oppose. If the user doesn't, then ignorance is a valid defense. In the most recent case, the person voting oppose is saying they'll support once the person removes the images as opposed to voting oppose without possibility of the vote being changed. So, I don't find any particular problem with the vote because it is not a static vote and allows for the ignorance defense. --Durin 14:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Opposing someone for something as trivial as not liking their signature is petty. Much better to simply discuss it with them. We're not electing representatives here, we're appointing administators. Stevage 15:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's a fine reason to vote oppose. To Durin, I would say ignorantia legis neminem excusat.  Ignorance of the law is no excuse.  People who don't know the project well enough to figure out what kind of signatures are preferred also don't know the project well enough to interpret consensus, delete pages, and implement bans.  -lethe talk [ +] 15:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Pictures in a signature? hmmm... [[Image:EsperanzaN.png|20px]] oSe [[Image:EsperanzaP.PNG|20px]] tembe [[Image:EsperanzaR.PNG|20px]] talk  18:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Nosept, sig pictures drain the image server uncessarily and make pages much slower to load for people with slower connections. By the way Lethe, the sig rule is only a guideline, and a minor guideline at that, so ignorantia legis neminem excusat shouldn't apply. Although, as long as we are doing the latin, imagi in signaturi delendi sunt (someone correct that if there are any mistakes, I'm sure there is at least one thing terribly wrong with it but not sure what). JoshuaZ 18:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As to whether or not the proverb applies, if you think that violation (willful or otherwise) of minor guidelines, shouldn't allow you to vote oppose on candidates, you're welcome to that opinion, but I happen not to agree. For people who don't agree with you, who think that violation of the guideline is bad, then there is still the ignorance defense which Durin brought, which I was objecting to.  I think violation of the rule is bad (in disagreement with you), and that ignorance is no defense (in disagreement with Durin). -lethe talk [ +] 19:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I knew that, but I'm always looking for new ideas for signatures :-). Πø§ėþťεmβër   talk  18:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the plural of imago is imagines. Also I think it's feminine, and prepositions take the ablative, so I think maybe imagines in signaturis delendae sunt, but don't quote me on it. -lethe talk [ +] 19:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, that had more mistakes than I thought (I suppose assuming everything is second declension is unhealthy). Your version looks correct. JoshuaZ 19:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Getting lessons in Latin at WT:RFA. Who'da thunk it? pops a budweiser open and kicks back.. --Durin 19:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)