Forum:Signature policy: Difference between revisions
→Comments
| Line 146: | Line 146: | ||
{{Maggosh|nathan=...I'll have to go with trois.}} | {{Maggosh|nathan=...I'll have to go with trois.}} | ||
{{EO|time=21:43, December 16, 2010 (UTC)|text=Always love how TNE states exactly what I'm thinking, granted it's in a more laid-back way. I side with her 100%}} | {{EO|time=21:43, December 16, 2010 (UTC)|text=Always love how TNE states exactly what I'm thinking, granted it's in a more laid-back way. I side with her 100%}} | ||
{{TNE|time=21:32, December 16, 2010 (UTC)|noel=To Soxra : I understand where you are coming from. The point is, most of us, if not all, prefer our images small. I have no problem with images. If we were to incorporate the image height thing into our KHW image policy, so be it. I'm fine with it. I am ''NOT'', however, fine with the changes to a sig by creating rules which are bound to contravene what the person is best.}} | {{TNE|time=21:32, December 16, 2010 (UTC)|noel=To Soxra : I understand where you are coming from. The point is, most of us, if not all, prefer our images small. I have no problem with images. If we were to incorporate the image height thing into our KHW image policy, so be it. I'm fine with it. I am ''NOT'', however, fine with the changes to a sig by creating rules which are bound to contravene what the person is best. And ''yes'', to the naked eye, 15px Aqua is not recognisable.}} | ||