User talk:Omega

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 02:22, 22 February 2013 by Davidy22 (talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by (talk) to last revision by TheOriginalSoni)
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to chat me up: I usually reply. Actually, I always reply. With hugs. And sometimes kittens. Maybe even a pony or two. Wearing cowboy boots.


Sorry, I'm used to having at least some bot welcome me, and my beautiful divs look awkward when they're empty. Had to have at least some filler here. So, self-welcome! Welcome to the explain xkcd wiki, Omega. I hope you'll enjoy your stay (okay, talking to myself is a bit confusing. Especially if when I reply back). Please remember it's xkcd, not XKCD or Xkcd or X.K.C.D. or whatever peeps are coming up with now. Yes, nitpick away. Go edit. Don't forget to close your tags, sign your posts (with ~~~~) and don't get confused about all the missing extensions this wiki lacks (where's my "upload multiple images"?!). Was that a sufficient welcome? Yes? (Do I reply to myself inline? Nawww...)

Again, welcome! Oh, oh, I wanna test my signature! Omega TalkContribs 07:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

So, the wiki is lacking missing extensions, you say? We could ask Jeff to remove some of the installed ones if you like Emoticon tongue.png. On a more serious note though: please oh please don't use that signature around! Let's keep things simple and clean, yes? By the way, welcome from a real, not-you person, and congrats on FIRSTing today's comic ;) --Waldir (talk) 11:11, 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? --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 ;) --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? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 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)