User talk:Brian0918/sig

Hi Brian,

Here's a shorter, but visually identical version of your signature (by optimizing the use of <small>s):

---

&nbsp;<font color="#EEEEEE">&#1080;</font><small><font color="#CCCCCC">A</font><font color="#AAAAAA">I</font></small><font color="#888888">&#1103;</font><small>[[User:Brian0918|<font color="#000000">'''BRIAN'''</font>]][[User talk:Brian0918|<font color="#555555">0918</font>]]</small>&nbsp;

---

Also, care to insert it into pages using the "subst:" prefix? It would reduce server load (because the substitution would take place when you add your signature to a page, rather than each time a page with your sig is accessed). Also, it would make it harder to vandalise your signature, for example ;o)

KissL 10:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the servers cache your signature together with the pages it is on, and access the database only when such a page is updated (which they still wouldn't need to do if you used subst).

A page containing the same template 100 times will certainly not re-read that template 100 times, I can't imagine any software to be this dumb (well, I can, but not MediaWiki :) So your measurement, especially when carried out only once, won't show the effect on server performance. (It's not a huge effect, rather a small but totally unneeded negative effect.)

And the vandalism argument still applies: if you don't use subst, someone might come and set the links in your sig to point somewhere you wouldn't like them to point (like profanity, or worse yet, the userpage of someone impersonating you), and all your previous comments will automatically link to the wrong place.

KissL 14:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I might be a little stupid...

...but has someone vandalised your sig? Josh Parris [#] 08:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)