Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Signatures

Dealing with unsigned comments

[edit]

Since we're in a new era no longer using IP addresses for anons, the section 'Dealing with unsigned comments' should probably be updated with current examples. I presume for unsigned temp user edits, we just use the temp account name (duh) but some formal guidance might be wise. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:50, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BOLD. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 04:54, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm to provide formal guidance on this new thing on wikipedia that I had no involvement in building, deploying, setting rules and regulations, not an admin or high-mucky-muck on any form of WP bureaucracies? I think not. Formal guidance doesn't come from a random jackass on the internet (two thumbs pointing at me). cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 05:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. If I knew the official term for these new things, I might try it myself. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 06:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My reluctance to be bold with changes is primarily because, to put it colloquially, I don't want to fuck up what's there, of which there's a high likelihood. I think it's better if someone more capable take it on. I'd do it myself if the likelihood of FIU was lower. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 06:15, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandruss: Temporary Accounts. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anastrophe and Redrose64: My best shot. Some buddy [sic] needs to decide the best way to bluelink the occurrences of ~1111-11111-11, as in Example. I'm not that buddy. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 05:27, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just replaced "IP" or "IP address" with "temp account". Now I belatedly see the previous changes that introduced the word "identifier"; e.g. "temporary account identifier". I don't know whether it's worth changing all of my "temp account"s to "temp account id" (or "temp acct id", or "temp acctid"). It could be argued that the temp account and the number associated with it are two different conceptual entities and should have different names. You decide. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢ IMO. 05:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw your edits, thank you for doing that. I think the finer details of what the account is named are immaterial. Somewhat experienced editors are the only folks likely to be hitting up this page for assistance. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 05:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there is a problem with the changes - now there is no 'template' for IP accounts. That's a problem because, particularly when trying to clean up the talk pages of older articles, there are frequently unsigned messages from IP editors from back then. On the other hand, the templates are all largely the same, except for very small differences - I almost wonder if the cluster of them could be trimmed/merged into fewer, as the need for some of the very small differences in presentation seems trivial to the point of being unnecessary...? I'm probably overthinking it. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless used incorrectly, {{subst:Unsigned}} and its variants are used for all unsigned comments. Thus the template is not in play after Publish. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 20:42, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replace [ampersand]#124;

[edit]

Attempting to use this in a signature results in it becoming invalid with the text: Your signature must consist of a single line of wikitext. However, {{pipe}} works. Perhaps replace the HTML character with that? TheTechie (talk) 19:01, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forging signatures

[edit]

Shouldn’t we add a small section on that you shouldn’t forge signatures. It could start like “In addition to using your own signatures, you are not permitted to use someone else’s signatures”. Also what about cases where someone has bad grammar and you need to fix the talk page, does that require a signature? WikiGrower1 (talk) 00:12, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall ever seeing a forged signature, and it would take a number of them to justify expansion of the guideline. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And we don't "fix" others' bad grammar; see WP:TPO. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 00:19, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my concern, although signature forgery isn’t common, it is serious as it violates integrity and potentially be used to impersonate someone. Is this more of a Wikipedia commons thing? WikiGrower1 (talk) 01:44, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. End. I don't know much about Commons. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 13:21, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiGrower1: We already have a section on this, it's at WP:SIGFORGE and is policy. The action to take is to replace the forged signature with a valid one per WP:SIGCLEAN, and serve a warning for repeat offences. I've seen several instances where a signature has been forged, and which I've fixed per policy. I don't see what Commons has to do with it. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isn’t it more common in Wikipedia commons? That’s what I mean by Wikipedia commons. WikiGrower1 (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't give any examples. Also, Wikimedia Commons (note, media not pedia) is outside our jurisdiction; if there is a behaviour problem there, you should report it there. I see that c:Commons:Signatures#Rules on customized signatures states: Forging signatures or deliberately concealing one's own identity will not be accepted. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simple

[edit]

Should I add {{simple|Wikipedia:Signature tutorial}} to help newbies get a general sense of what signatures are? This pages is chock full of details that are surely confusing for new users. FaviFake (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]