User talk:Jahuteskye8310

Signature
Hi, looks like you're trying to build a custom signature. You might be interested in this: Request_assistance -- Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 22:47, 29 January 2007 (CST)
 * Thanks, I think I have it set up the right way now :) [[Image:Frenzy.jpg|19px]][[Image:Healing_Signet.jpg|19px]][[Image:Echo.jpg|19px]][[Image:Arcane_Echo.jpg|19px]][[Image:Mending.jpg|19px]] Jahuteskye (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2007 (CST)

Looks like you should check Sign your comments/P1. It's got some policies relevant to the images in your sig. — HarshLanguage 05:03, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * I see that there has been a proposed guideline that states that the images in signatures should be unique -- Oh well, quick and easy use of the print screen button should remedy this problem! Thanks for the heads up.[[Image:Frenzy.jpg|19px]][[Image:Healing_Signet.jpg|19px]][[Image:Echo.jpg|19px]][[Image:Arcane_Echo.jpg|19px]][[Image:Mending.jpg|19px]] Jahuteskye (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * It was made GuildWiki policy on Jan. 15 since there was no opposition. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 06:24, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * Do you reckon you could make your sig less of an assault on the eyes!? The colours are waaaay to full on at the moment. Thanks. --Xasxas256 05:27, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * Haha, sure -- this sig wasn't intended to be permanent -- just figuring out HOW to do it really --[[image:Jahuteskyesig.jpg]] (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * I hate to say this, but your sig icon is too wide. The policy allows a sig icon width up to 50 pixels. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 07:06, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * Hmm... The max width makes little sense to me -- it'd be wider if I just used the standard Jahuteskye link! I can understand if someone was abusing it, but if I make it any shorter I wouldnt be able to fit my name on there! At this point, it seems to me that it is less of an "icon" and more of an image-based signature --[[image:Jahuteskyesig.jpg]] (talk)  19:16, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * It also says "be sparing with color"...change it, or use the normal vanilla sig for now! My poor eyes :( --Xasxas256 07:14, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * Didn't you notice the newer version? The lst one used on this page. It has nice, non-bright colors. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 07:17, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * Still looks like a lot of colours to me! I mean it's an improvement but...I'm still not a fan! --Xasxas256 07:19, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * Make sure you aren't working off of a cached version... my current version has arguably duller colors than the standard blue link!--[[image:Jahuteskyesig.jpg]] (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * Yeah, I don't understand how that light 'almost white' can be disturbing. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2007 (CST)

To me, both sigs are terrific. But ya, that later one is less of an optical battery. -- Oblio (talk) 11:13, 30 January 2007 (CST)