User:Useight/Requests for signatureship

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for signatureship. Please modify it.

After reviewing the !votes under careful review, the candidate appears to have a need and knowledge of the signature tools. Despite thrice the amount of negative !votes to positive ones, the "too many signatures currently" !vote nullified all negative !votes which caused sudden, instant, and even immediate success of the RfS. The candidate will be automatically placed in the Signatures Open to Recall list.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 02:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Useight

Nomination

(8/29/0/Signature ideas:15); Scheduled to end 23:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I've been here for a couple of years now and I've noticed that pretty much everyone except me has a custom signature. I was hoping to find out if I qualify for one. I had been looking for a Signature Coach for some time now, but have been unsuccessful, so I am nominating myself.

I have 42,000 edits, with over 9,000 to various talk pages, so the signature would go to good use. And for those of you with the concern, yes, I would add myself to Category:Signatures Open to Recall. If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask. Useight (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC) <--- Note the un-customized signature

— Useight (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a Signature Portrayer. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. How do you plan on using the signature, if granted?

A. Well, I figured I'd only use it when making comments in the Talk, User Talk, and Wikipedia Talk namespaces. In theory I could use it in File Talk or Template Talk, but I don't really foresee that happening. I also hereby make a campaign promise not to use it in the mainspace, even though putting it there would be highly visible, and therefore awesome.

2. Do you know the rules for custom signatures?

A. Well, let's see. I know not to subst it or to use an image in it. They also shouldn't be too long, too big, too small, too colorful, or anything else fun. I definitely won't pull a John Hancock. Although I could probably WikiLawyer my way out of these rules if necessary.

3. What custom signature will you use?

A. I must apologize because I don't have a good answer to Q3 (even though I wrote it), so I made a section below for suggestions.

4. Compulsory question from WereSpielChequers : Chat What are your views on flagged signatures?

A. I think everything should have a flag

5. Mandatory question by iMatthew : Chat : Do you like numbers?

A. User:Useight's Mom was always a bigger fan of Numb3rs than I was. I didn't even know it was still running until I clicked that link. Well, actually, I didn't click that link at all, I typed it in the search box.

6. Do you like the sig I suggested? --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 00:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A. Only if you switch to the support section.

7. Are you Power Hungry^TM question from Mailer Diablo: What is the difference between a signature and four tildes?

A. Um, a signature is longer? I might need to use a lifeline on this one.

8, If you could have any one of these signatures, which and why? --Bencherlite ^Talk 00:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A. Abraham Lincoln, per Stovepipe hat.

9. Do you see a signature as analogous to leaving spoor to mark your territory? If not, why, and how do you plan to rectify this character flaw? --Gwern (contribs) 02:06 1 April 2009 (GMT)

A. Actually, I view spoor as analogous to leaving a signature to mark territory. I will rectify this through the use of Zen, meditation, mysticism, and various rituals. Useight (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

10. Optional question from Pianista : Chat (Meaning, answer or the server kitty gets it.) Do you really care for what happens to the server kitties, or is your concern merely a facade on which the public may feed, like puppies upon M&Ms? Pianista : Chat 04:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A. It's all a façade, just like how I create the illusion of intelligence by using special characters within the first few words of my sentences.

Discussion

Does anyone know the required support percentage for an RFS to pass? If it's 10% or less then I'm on my way. Useight (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- If you fail, then you have to leave unsigned posts for the rest of time, of course. That said, I don't think any RFS has ever failed before, so you might be OK. Perhaps our newest bureaucrat should be asked to close this one? Bencherlite : Chat 00:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

Looks good to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Support Too many signatures currently. Camw : Chat 00:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo : Chat and I approve this signature! - 00:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I support: Useight supported a proposal that beats WP:PEDRO handily and easily! Acalamari : Chat 02:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Supercalifragilistic Support ~~Dammit,this user !voted for me~~ I mean this user shows outstanding judgement and intuition, give him three signatures immediately! Paxse : Chat 17:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Sahmeditor But this will be the last one I support. Æe tlr Cre ejl 14:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
i luv mai new sig ;D GlassCobra 16:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Full support, and I know what I'm talking about. --SineBot (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Strongest oppose ever - has not copied Pedro's sig on this joyous day. the_ed17 : Chat 00:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. No Pedro sig. NocturneNoir : Chat 00:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - Uhh... your sig is SOOO unoriginal... X! : Chat 00:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Majorly talk 00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Majorly talk 00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Majorly talk 00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Majorly talk 00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Majorly talk 00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Majorly talk 00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Majorly talk 00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Majorly talk 00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Majorly talk 00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Majorly talk 00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Majorly talk 00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Majorly talk 00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Majorly talk 00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Majorly talk 00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Majorly talk 00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Majorly talk 00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Majorly talk 00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Majorly talk 00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Majorly talk 00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Majorly talk 00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Majorly talk 00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Majorly talk 00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Majorly talk 00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose What is with your signature!? iMatthew : Chat 00:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose No wai. Jake Wartenberg : Chat 00:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - per NocturneNoir. J.delanoy : Chat 00:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Until It Sleeps : Chat 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Until It Sleeps : Chat 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Until It Sleeps : Chat 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Until It Sleeps : Chat 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Until It Sleeps : Chat 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Until It Sleeps : Chat 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Until It Sleeps : Chat 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Until It Sleeps : Chat 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Until It Sleeps : Chat 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Until It Sleeps : Chat 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Until It Sleeps : Chat 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Until It Sleeps : Chat 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Until It Sleeps : Chat 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Until It Sleeps : Chat 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Until It Sleeps : Chat 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Until It Sleeps : Chat 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Until It Sleeps : Chat 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Until It Sleeps : Chat 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Until It Sleeps : Chat 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Until It Sleeps : Chat 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Until It Sleeps : Chat 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Until It Sleeps : Chat 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Until It Sleeps : Chat 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Until It Sleeps : Chat 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Woah. It's April Fool's Day in like, other time zones? Perfect Proposal : Chat 00:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Too many signatureships currently. Floquenbeam : Chat 00:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose, I view self-noms prima facie as evidence of sig hunger. Wizardman : Chat 00:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Poor history with signatures in the past. Camw : Chat 00:118, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Too many signatures currently. Juliancolton : Chat 00:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Too many automated signatures.--Res2216firestar : Chat 00:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. No endorsement by any signature-makers. bibliomaniac15 : Chat 00:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
HAGGER??? I mean...user resists the greatness of WP:PEDRO. Acalamari : Chat 00:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Strong delete clearly non-notable. Camw : Chat 00:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Very strong oppose as there is no scientific evidence to support this claim. Filelakeshoe : Chat 00:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Not April Fool's Day here in NY yet, but why the hell not? --01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)~~ Giants27 ^T/C Giants27 ^T/C Giants27 ^T/C Giants27 ^T/C Giants27 ^T/C Giants27 ^T/C Giants27 ^T/C Giants27 ^T/C Giants27 ^T/C Giants27 ^T/C Giants27 ^T/C Giants27 ^T/C Giants27 ^T/C Giants27 ^T/C Giants27 ^T/C --Giants27 ^T/C 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)--Giants27 ^T/C 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)--Giants27 ^T/C 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)--Giants27 ^T/C 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)--Giants27 ^T/C 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)--Giants27 ^T/C 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)--Giants27 ^T/C 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)--Giants27 ^T/C 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)--Giants27 ^T/C 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)--Giants27 ^T/C 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)--Giants27 ^T/C 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)--Giants27 ^T/C 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)--Giants27 ^T/C 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)--Giants27 ^T/C 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)--Giants27 ^T/C 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)--Giants27 ^T/C 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)--Giants27 ^T/C 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)--Giants27 ^T/C 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)--Giants27 ^T/C 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)--Giants27 ^T/C 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)--Giants27 ^T/C 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)--Giants27 ^T/C 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)--Giants27 ^T/C 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)--Giants27 ^T/C 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)--Giants27 ^T/C 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)--Giants27 ^T/C 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)--Giants27 ^T/C 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)--Giants27 ^T/C 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)--Giants27 ^T/C 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
There is no signature. NuclearWarfare : Chat 01:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
There is no cabal! It doesn't exist. But if you really need a signature that bad, suggest coming back in six months. Ceranthor 01:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose: Too much experience. You should have asked about two months earlier. Chamal ^talk 01:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Shirley you jest. rootology : Chat 02:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose where's teh pedro? Thingg : Chat 03:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose User has failed to demonstrate the creativity necessary in designing a distinctive signature, such as the fine variety just above. Come back in six years, and we'll reconsider. -- Noroton : Chat 03:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Useight should start a revolution of people using default sigs only, and not being influenced by other people's airy fairy artyness. Oh and I also think users with custom signatures should be blocked. ME : Chat 04:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Need pedro sig. Raiku Lucifer Samiyaza : Chat 05:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Strong Oppose
Strong Oppose! darkweasel94 (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Regretfully oppose. I'm very worried this editor will misuse the signature for things like calm, rational consensus building discussions. Signatures should only be used for flame wars and uncivil remarks, leading to AN/I drahmas.--Fabrictramp : Chat 18:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

Suggested signatures

Useight (talk) - Proposed by IMatthew
Support. You can never have too much pink. Soap ^♥Talk♥/_{♡Contributions♡} 01:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Useight : Chat - Proposed by IMatthew
Supported by the_ed17.
Useight talk)
*USEIGHT*^*TALK*
Strong Support Best evar. Jake Wartenberg : Chat 00:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Useight (talk) - Proposed by WereSpielChequers : Chat 00:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
LOVE IT :)PerfectProposal 00:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Useight ^talk - Proposed by IMatthew again
Useight · Speak with me · Art by moi. Proposed by Dylan620
thgiesU:klat resU thgiesU:resU Proposed by Camw : Chat 01:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Useight Useight^{See my disgustingly long sig suggested by Shappy, who is definitely not a myspacer (*rolls eyes*)} Shappy : Chat 01:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Useight ^(talk) - Proposed by Camw : Chat 01:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
ʇɥbıǝsǝnoʎ - or ʇɥbıǝsn - Proposed by Ceranthor 01:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC).
- Black magic. I support. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Use - Add a link to the talkpage yourself. Proposed by Chamal : Chat 01:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Useight (talk)
Useight (talk) --X! : Chat 03:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The Pink Phink : Text me! 11:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Other

Dependent. As I'm sure you are aware, Useight, signatureship is treated like a religion on Wikipedia. Thus, we can not go around handing out signatures to everyone who asks for one. Certain circumstances must arise before a candidate can be selected, no matter the certainty shown in the caucus. It being March (USA, baby!), only the March Madness games can determine whether you are qualified for success in the closing of your RFS. Please, Useight, select one of the current four teams still left in the NCAA tournament (Michigan, UCONN, Villanova, or UNC, if you haven't been watching). If that team wins the championship, you may have your signature. In order to achieve a professional outlook, please post your team as a reply to this. TheInfinityZero (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I will select UNC over UCONN in the championship. However, if you're willing to take the bet, I'll put $10 that a team with an "N" (with no respect to case-sensitivity) somewhere in their name will win. Useight (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Go Heels! Dank55^Talk <- The secret to passing RfB ... it's all in the sig