User talk:Sigm@

User:Sigm@/archive1 User:Sigm@/archive2

Rate-a-user
Favoured:
 * 1) =) Caramel Ni 09:48, 3 March 2007 (CST)

Unfavoured
 * 1) (Your vote here)

Voting starts again!

Old R-a-u
Even though you omitted it when you archived your talk page, it doesn't mean we can't find anymore: your old Rate-a-user --Jill Bioskop X 09:41, 3 March 2007 (CST)
 * And ehm why would you look there? -- SigmA 09:42, 3 March 2007 (CST)
 * Well .. why should I not look there? --Jill Bioskop X 09:47, 3 March 2007 (CST)
 * Let bygones be bygones... -- Sig mA  09:48, 3 March 2007 (CST)
 * (Ah .. my eyes .. where are my sunglasses? Are you supporting ADO Den Haag?) .. But you archived the rest of your talk page, so same reason why someone should look there can be used here :) --Jill Bioskop X 09:58, 3 March 2007 (CST)
 * Yes, ADO. I need another nick, so I can do half green half yellow, got one for me? -- Sig mA 10:02, 3 March 2007 (CST)

Sig
Your sig is turning entire pages green. :-) - Krowman (talk • contribs)  14:34, 3 March 2007 (CST)

I know, what can I do? -- Sig mA  14:35, 3 March 2007 (CST)
 * I fixed it for you - - it was missing a /font tag. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:39, 3 March 2007 (CST)
 * Thanks:) -- Sig mA  14:40, 3 March 2007 (CST)
 * Yes, I just got an edit conflict saying just that. You also might want to change your sig from "SigmA" to "Sigm@," as another user recently created an account named "User:Sigma." GW:SIGN also says that your signature must contain your username, which is Sigm@, not SigmA. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs) 14:43, 3 March 2007 (CST)
 * Well then I can complain about Tetris L, Gem and Gares Redstorm.. I'll leave it like this. -- Sig mA  14:46, 3 March 2007 (CST)
 * I'm just pointing out that since another user has a very similiar name as you, you might want to be more clear in your signature about who you are. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs)
 * Edit conflit! I am SigmA and he is Sigma. -- Sig mA  14:49, 3 March 2007 (CST)
 * I wouldn't worry about it being SigmA vs Sigm@; the policy reads "A substituted signature should resemble to some degree the username it represents. Signatures that obscure an account name to the casual reader may be seen as disruptive." - which I don't see that variance as disruptive.
 * However, the yellow is so faint as to make that part of the name almost unreadable. That part, to me, should be changed to a more visible color.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:51, 3 March 2007 (CST)
 * I changed it to gold, better? -- Sig mA  14:54, 3 March 2007 (CST)
 * It's margionally better ... but still very faint. I won't make a fuss myself at this point, but if others complain, I would be compelled to agree that it still needs to be darker. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:56, 3 March 2007 (CST)
 * That's why you are my favourite admin =) -- Sig mA  14:58, 3 March 2007 (CST)