User talk:Faithlessthewonderboy/Archive 29

Sig

I'm not protesting your comment, but just out of curiosity ... why do templates even allow for signatures? It strikes me that the downside (obvious, no?) would far outweigh the upside (what might that be? Character analysis based on it?). And in other areas wp is certainly careful about not doing things that might lead to liability, or loss of some sort to living persons. Just curious as to your thoughts.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, though I generally think it's overused, the wp:othercrapexists argument is a reasonable one when that's the only defense for something. Or so I've been told. Often. When I've raised the argument.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I agree with you - I have no idea why those images are so widespread throughout Wikipedia, and I don't think they add much at all to the encyclopedia (though the idea that having them is in some way 'dangerous' or 'illegal' is absurd). The problem I have is when someone decides that one in particular out of the countless similar signature images on WP has to go, while giving absolutely no legitimate reason to support their position. If they wanted to begin a Wikipedia-wide discussion in an effort to remove these useless images from the encyclopedia, they would have my support. But picking this one example and insisting that it has to go for no other reason than the fact that they WP:DONTLIKEIT, that I have a problem with. I hope that answers your question. Best, faithless (^speak) 22:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me for chuckling as I read your reply. As luck would have it, I could I expect argue either side here. And don't have strong feelings, though no doubt if I worked at it I could develop them. If I had enough time/energy, or better yet if someone else were to figure out where the discussion should be started (and actually start it), I would be happy to join in as well.

The reason I chuckle, is when I do have a strong feeling, and object similarly, I always meet w/the wp:othercrapexists argument. And then I argue that that is a fine argument, as long as it's not my only one. And then the other party disagrees with me anyway. And unless I want an edit war/ANI, I have to essentially walk away from it all as we end up not agreeing. It barely matters what the issue is (though the last I recall having this on, and caring, was whether it was ok to use a band album cover on the band page ... answer:no ... despite it often being the case, where I wanted to follow suit, editors lined up to delete it).

One last point/question. Why don't you believe that there is danger in having one's signature out and about? Seriously - if I were a ceo charged with signing an annual report that would be public record, I would have my secretary do it. Now, with SEC filings online, there is some degree of risk that can't be avoided, but since banks still use signature cards, and checks can be mocked up, I think this may be a real world risk. See this for a quick example.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

We're not talking about nuclear launch codes here, we're talking about a facsimile of a politician's signature. Every election year, millions of pieces of junk mail are sent out bearing these signatures; I've received them, I'm sure you have too. If a politician's signature poses such a serious security risk, then having these signatures home-delivered to every registered voter in the commonwealth seems an awfully odd thing to do! Best, faithless (^speak) 23:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting -- do we just display them for politicians?--Epeefleche (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Mostly politicians, but you can often find them for authors (such as Ernest Hemingway, Sylvia Plath, and Haruki Murakami) and occasionally entertainers (such as George Carlin and Johnny Carson). faithless (^speak) 01:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I would have no problem with dead people. The identity theft issues there are less pressing. And you have a point if the signature is already out there (and I guess it has to be for it to be put up on wp, and be verifiable). But identity theft and credit card fraud are real problems, with enormous dollar amounts attached to them. And I still am puzzled as to the benefit. Just my two cents.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree about there being no great benefit, but I can't see any possible scenario where it presents any danger at all. First, as you mentioned, they're already out there. It's not as if signatures are highly-guarded secrets. At a rally last February I was able to get autographs from Tim Kaine, Barack Obama, and Bobby Scott. I was just one of several thousand people at one of several hundred similar rallies. I doubt a day has passed in the past five years where Kaine hasn't signed autographs for at least a few people. And second, if someone is interested in stealing your identity, it isn't going to make any difference if they have an image of your signature. I know when I got my credit card, it was all done over the phone - I never signed a single piece of paper. And hell, if they do need a signature, why can't they just forge it? Well, that's my take - no benefit, but no risk either. If someone wanted to get a discussion going to get all such images removed from Wikipedia, I would offer my mild support. But the general opinion seems to be that they belong. Best, faithless (^speak) 04:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Based on the discussion on the BLP noticeboard, it appears that there has been a request from a representative of the subject that his signature not be displayed on-wiki in this manner. Given the near-universal agreement that the signature adds nothing to our encyclopedic content, this request should be honored. Please do not restore the signature again. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but is there any proof of such a request, aside from the vague assertions of a user who was indefinitely blocked (since unblocked) for his part in this whole mess? faithless (^speak) 03:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport<----this page use word football for american football only and use soccer for association football such as football helmet and soccer ball. please correct it. you can use gridiron helmet for american football and football for soccer ball

Dani Pacheco

Hi, seems like this player has played football for the first team, and the page should be redirected to Daniel Pacheco. Or maybe "Daniel" should be moved to "Dani", I'm uncertain of what his most common name is... Just thought I'd notify you before we get a duplicate article ;o) lil2mas (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)