User talk:Red Slash/Other people's signatures

Delete this page?
User:Matt Yeager appears to think that users have the right to inflict their vanity-dehanced signatures on others' talk pages, permanently. Well, he might phrase that rather differently. Anyway, his solo version.

User:Hoary happens to think that this sucks. He doesn't remember ever having cut the crap from another user's signature, but a couple of times he has been sorely tempted to do so on his own user talk page, and the only reason why he didn't do so was that he figured these peacock signatures were unintentionally amusing notices to the world that their perps were dicks.

Noting that this little essay was not in Matt Yeager's userspace and therefore could be edited by all, Hoary made a sweeping revision of it according to his own discerning tastes. Result.

(In order to do this, he had to give an example of a peacock signature. This made a real mess of the page. Well, that's precisely the point; or, if you prefer, POINT.)

Matt Yeager seems not to have been amused. Without saying so in his edit summary, he reverted Hoary's edit.

User:Picaroon9288 perhaps didn't see the Hoary version, but added a tweak to the Matt Yeager version that suggests he might have been happier with the former -- producing this.

Even if Picaroon9288 doesn't agree with Hoary, it's likely that a lot of other people do. Even if Picaroon9288 does agree with Hoary, it's likely that a lot of other people agree with Matt Yeager. Hoary (probably with others too) is quite prepared to piss all over anything advocating the Matt Yeager POV if it's posted in a place like this; Matt Yeager (probably with others too) is quite prepared to revert (or perhaps piss all over) anything advocating the Hoary POV if ditto.

Yes, they're points of view. They needn't necessarily remain mere points of view; indeed, it's hazily imaginable that Matt and Hoary might one day work out a compromise. (Matt and Hoary both mutter to themselves: "That's right: when he comes round to agreeing with me.") But they're points of view now.

For this reason, I warmly recommend deletion of this article. Matt would of course be welcome to repost it somewhere within his userspace, whereupon Hoary for one would certainly refrain from editing it, let alone from altering its thrust. (Perhaps Matt would also refrain from messing too much with any alternative that Hoary later decided to place in his own userspace.) How about it? -- Hoary 00:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Procedural PS: I'd intended to PROD this; I prefer to avoid the rigmarole of *fD where possible. But PROD isn't an option, I learn. -- Hoary 00:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did indeed see your revision, and considered reverting to it, but I decided that would be disruptive, so I made my own tweak instead. I heartily endorse userfication, because otherwise this will be a non-stop edit war. Picaroon (Talk) 00:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh. I sigh not because what you did was wrong, but because I sillily forgot to mention that of course users should be able to modify signatures that people have placed on the user's own talk page (or other userspace). I have to say that this page was only meant to refer to project, template, category, and mainspace talk pages. Sigh... yes,    Example   ¡Write  2 me!  is ridiculous; I propose that  Matt Yeager  ♫  (Talk?) , with less than half the characters, is not.


 * I seem to have clearly underestimated the pro-refactoring viewpoint and apologize to Hoary and Picaroon and anybody else. Indeed, such a broadly-titled page is clearly editable by whoever decides to edit it, and indeed it may well be best suited to userspace if that specific user decides it needs to hold a certain point of view on the issue presented. (I've already userfied it.) I also hold out hope of a compromise being reached, but I don't know if it's possible for a broad agreement between all participants in the dispute when the primary (pick your POV: comment-vandalizing or cruft-removing) editor says stuff like "I don't think it likely that a reasonable person on examining the result of my incidental cleanups of talk pages would describe my actions as "dickish". Beneficial, much-needed, admirable, a god-send, perhaps. But not dickish." (which was of course written by the inimitable Tony Sidaway, emphasis mine). Regardless, I recognize that some of what I've done regarding this issue has been a mistake, and I apologize for it. You, Hoary, have been very civil, restrained, and clever, and I commend you for it.  Matt Yeager   ♫  (Talk?)  19:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought
Don't Create Essays and Then Cite Them As If They Were Policy.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)