User talk:Floquenbeam: Difference between revisions

Notes Normal humans: I'm not online very often these days, and when I am, I don't have much stomach for anything complicated, stressful, depressing, or time consuming. You're still welcome to post here, but it's unlikely I'll be able or willing to help in a timely manner. Admins: I'm not online very often these days, so if you think an admin action I've taken in the past is wrong or no longer useful, go ahead and undo or change it without feeling like you have to talk to me first. WP:SOLVED WP:LIGHTBULB WP:VOGONS WP:BEDFELLOWS

Folly, thou conquerest, and I must yield! Against stupidity the very gods Themselves contend in vain. --Friedrich Schiller

Archives Year Zero: 13 Aug 2008 - 12 Aug 2009 Year One:13 Aug 2009 - 12 Aug 2010 Year Two:13 Aug 2010 - 12 Aug 2011 Year Three:13 Aug 2011 - 12 Aug 2012 Year Four:13 Aug 2012 - 12 Aug 2013 Year Five:13 Aug 2013 - 12 Aug 2014 Year Six:13 Aug 2014 - 12 Aug 2015 Year Seven:13 Aug 2015 - 12 Aug 2016 Year Eight:13 Aug 2016 - 12 Aug 2017 Year Nine:13 Aug 2017 - 12 Aug 2018 Year Ten:13 Aug 2018 -7 July 2024 This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

...for the unblock last week. I don't consider blocks to be trivial but instead disheartening and a disincentive to build an encyclopedia. I am not testing the limits of my ban. I am not like that and don't see a purpose in even trying to do such a thing. Thanks again. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 04:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Barbara (WVS): Glad to help. I know you weren't testing the limits of your topic ban; I'm still amazed there were people who thought it was a violation of your topic ban, much less an intentional one. As you can probably tell from my blanking of the page, I'm deeply unimpressed with the essay itself, but I do appreciate the way you've responded to this. Painful, I would imagine, but hopefully a learning experience too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The font is only 12pt which I figured to be pretty standard... seems to be the same size as the rest of the text for me? I really didn't expect this to be an issue for anyone :( Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only (watching), Salvidrim, and certainly not a mindreader, but I think it's less the font or its size than the massive black box that surrounds it  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 15:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Floq specifically pointed out the font size but the enhanced contrast may have been what he meant. It's a visual aid! Top score on MOS:CONTRAST! :p Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(tpw, but I said exactly the same thing at ARCA) The obnoxious black box doesn't help, but what jars with me is the giant font; to me, it screams out "I'm so much more important than any of you, my name needs to be larger, and if it screws up the line spacing for everything else that's a price worth paying". It's the kind of thing a brand-new editor playing around with code does, not someone who's been here as long as you. ‑ Iridescent 15:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

re: "giant font" - I'm trying to understand your perspective and address the perceived issue but still, font-size is set only at 12pt.... I'm really taken aback by these issues being raised for the first time out of the blue. I've used this signature for 7 years or so, it feels as much part of me as my haircut, hence my apparent reticence to overhaul it. There was a request during my 2013 RFA to add a direct talk page linke, which I did, and there were some questions last year about the "envelope" unicode character, but obnoxious/garish criticism of the whole concept is surprising. Honestly. Not trying to be a difficult primadonna. It's meant to be contrast-enhanced (light blue/dark purple, the default windows link colors, on a white background, now that's much less contrasted). I've thrown some mockups on User:Salvidrim!/sandbox for now.... Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) wtf that's not how it looks like to me at all. hold on a sec Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What Iri is showing is how it looks to me too. Is it possible that somehow your default text is larger? Or, from your perspective, mine is smaller? Although I doubt very much I would have changed mine... wouldn't know how to, for starters. And I did bring this up with you, possibly a year ago. Although if it looks completely different to you, I can see how you'd have brushed that off. FWIW, out of curiosity I previewed your signature with just the default font size, and the black box isn't really that annoying if the font size is the same as the text. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I remember we talked about it over e-mail, IIRC it was more about the character length in the edit window and I cleaned up to minimize that by half with more tidy formatting. Sorry if I misunderstood the issue was also with the rendering... Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, that's right, it was by email; no wonder I spent 10 minutes unsuccessfully trying to find that conversation on-wiki because I'd forgotten that. Yes, I think you did address half my concern, and I remember disengaging with the other half in frustration because you said you didn't see the problem, and it didn't occur to me that... you literally didn't actually see the problem. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You e-mailed me because it was during my RfB and you didn't want people to latch on to that minor quibble to oppose... hindsight is 20/20 but I can't help but to find the concern you had morbidly amusing in retrospect. Makes one wish that a stupid signature was the worst issue. ^_^" Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 

  I now realize that it displays much differently for you, of course from what you see I agree it's obnoxiously large and garish... deff need to find out why it does that and how to fix. cc Ivanvector Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  (talk page stalker) Salvidrim!: I'm no tech whiz, but I wonder if this could be the result of forcing a certain font size, rather than using the default. It might be fixable simply by removing "font-size:12pt" from the signature. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  You might well be right. Per User:Salvidrim!/sandbox no-font-size specification looks the same as 11pt which I assume is the default generic text font size? Tell me if my sig here looks any better ----> Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The original looks to me the same as how it looks for Salv, as far as I can tell, and doesn't affect the line spacing. Smaller in the revised version. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Yes, it looks much better to me. Not great, because I'm a grump and think everyone should just use the default sig, but it no longer Screams at me. I'd say you're still in the upper quartile of annoying, but no longer in the upper 1% :) . There are easily 3 dozen people I can think of I'd like to indef block for their signatures before I set my sights on this new one. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe hardcoding the font-size to make it look good to me (i.e. in my display environment) made it fuck up for people using smaller-than-11pt font sizes or smaller resolutions or lower DPI or whatever, as opposed to setting a relative or default font-size. Same kind of issue as the tweaks to column templates, removing column count in favor of relative-column-width to account for a variety of font sizes, display sizes, DPI, resolutions, etc.etc. Thanks for taking the time guys to help figure out the issue and hopefully with the text size now using the environment's default, the annoyance factor has gone way down :p Ben · Salvidrim! ✉

(edit conflict)Floq, there's a script you can use that displays all users' signatures in the default format. I don't know where it is, but someone keeps saying it exists. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there is, then you have made my day. Will hunt for it... --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unclutter? Not quite default, but close. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, please share if you dig it out valereee (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know of two: User:Pointillist/reformat-signatures.css (which makes every sig default but Pointillist's, probably easy to tweak so that it makes everyone (or everyone-but-you) display default) and the aforementioned User:Kephir/gadgets/unclutter#Signature minimisation within which one of the functions is to standardize sigs. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to @Ivanvector, Nikkimaria, Salvidrim!, Pointillist, and Kephir:. You all rock. Oh, and @Valereee:, these both work for me. Kephir's does other stuff too, some of which is confusing so I'm temporarily going with Pointillist's just because I fear whatever I don't understand (although I suspect you could opt out of the other stuff). But either one does exactly what I needed them to do. One less blood pressure trigger. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantic I know, but I don't think I noticed the header of that query, just the text of the query itself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• for the curious. But you originally saw it because the edit summary (which includes the thread title) showed up on your watchlist, no? That's how I saw it, I guess I'm just assuming everyone is like me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I only saw an edit to BN, the Chrome Extension I use for watchlist... watching... doesn't show edit summaries :p Wikipedia Watchlist - Chrome Extension Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jax 0677. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User_talk:MelanieN#March_2019 that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]