| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 11: |
Line 11: |
| | | | |
| | :: I know what you mean about the extensions, I was just kidding :) As for the signature... it does stand out quite a bit, yes, and not in a good way, I'm afraid. We don't have a signature policy and I'm glad we don't, as it would only be instruction creep at this point. The more rules we can avoid by relying on people's common sense, the better and friendlier the community will be, as we won't be forcing people to do things, but agreeing on them instead. I would prefer if you'd make it less flashy, not necessarily totally bland and boring like mine :) What do you say, let's find a middle ground? --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 21:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC) | | :: I know what you mean about the extensions, I was just kidding :) As for the signature... it does stand out quite a bit, yes, and not in a good way, I'm afraid. We don't have a signature policy and I'm glad we don't, as it would only be instruction creep at this point. The more rules we can avoid by relying on people's common sense, the better and friendlier the community will be, as we won't be forcing people to do things, but agreeing on them instead. I would prefer if you'd make it less flashy, not necessarily totally bland and boring like mine :) What do you say, let's find a middle ground? --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 21:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC) |
| − |
| |
| − | ::: Yeah, it's better. Not less flashy (perhaps more, actually), but certainly less messy (the shadows made the previous sig. almost unreadable). My main objection to elaborated signatures is how they stand out from other signatures, making posts signed with them draw the eye more, which I think is distracting in discussions. But let's leave it at that. Seems like a reasonable middle ground, and nobody is complaining yet ;) --[[User:Waldir|Waldir]] ([[User talk:Waldir|talk]]) 23:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::::Your talk link is directing me to [[User talk:Hofmic]], which belongs to an unregistered account. I'm guessing that this isn't intentional? --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]]</sup> 02:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :Please see the picture on umwelt discussion and make the appropriate changes to the photo you have uploaded *hides kneecaps* 11:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==???==
| |
| − | <sup>I don't know what this is, but I want to keep this one</sup>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I appreciate that this was a hloribre event to wake up to and that the Rimuhosting staff scrambled to correct the problems. I recognize also that Rimuhosting has been at the mercy of third parties with whom it contracts to provide service to its clients/customers. There are only so many variables one can reasonably manage and failures will happen from time to time e28094 just the nature of the beast.However, one thing I don't understand is how e28094 short of a direct lightning strike e28094 a power event could corrupt some servers. It's as if this Dallas data center has no provision for UPS battery backup so that servers could be brought down (relatively) cleanly.I'm getting the impression that many servers were simply deprived of power on the spot e28094 no clean shutdown process. As a result, the file systems (and some VPS's) may have been corrupted.I don't expect uninterrupted power, but I do think it's reasonable that secondary power be available at least long enough for on-site technicians to manually shut down the servers to ensure a better start-up process once power has been restored.If I'm mistaken and if battery backup was in place, then what led to the inability of a number of servers to come back up? (This question excludes config-related issues such as SSL certs and the like.) If I'm not mistaken, what measures are being taken to correct this so that future power events can be handled more gracefully by this data center?Thanks for your work and for providing direct and straightforward status reports to your customers. {{unsigned|96.53.82.230|02:21, 22 February 2013}}
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==That signature==
| |
| − | It's a pretty large. Here's a near-identical version that shaves away 295 characters:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <nowiki><span title="PS: I can kill you with my brain." style="font-family:impact,arial black,sans serif;text-shadow:0 0 0.2em#59F1FF,0 0 0.2em#59F1FF">[[User:Omega|<span style="font-size:14pt;color:#1D4F54">Omega</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Omega|<span style="font-size:10pt;color:#1D4F54">Talk</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Omega|<span style="font-size:10pt;color:#1D4F54">Contribs</span>]]</sup></span></nowiki>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | It's a pretty darned nice sig, just takes up a heap of space in the edit window of talk pages. Like it? '''[[User:Davidy22|<u>{{Color|purple|David}}<font color=green size=3px>y</font></u><font color=indigo size=4px>²²</font>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 10:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
| |
