HAY GUYS

Dark Nation · 04:47 PM

Hmm, so my signature was mysteriously deleted. Ok, fine... but I would have liked a PM or something TELLING ME, instead of just "BAM, UR SIG IS LIKE TOTALLY GONE". Also, why was my signature just NOW removed, when these rules have been up for a month?

Clearly if it was against the rules, then it would have been logically removed within a day, but I've had my SOAP extension up for more then a week.
(This thread's Creation Date: March 6th, today is April 4th, close enough)

So, when it says image dimensions, does this go for each individual image, or all together? The latter is the only reason I see mine being removed, because I carefully made sure to have both images LESS then 50k.

So, yeah I'd like an explanation.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Dark Nation · 05:04 PM

Quote:

Maximum image dimensions: 550 pixels wide, 300 pixels high (total)

The wording on here still connotates that each individual image has a max of 500 by 300, not both images combined. THAT IS WHY I ASKED right now.
Also, I DID read it, back when I added the second image, and it came out to around 45-47k IIRC.

My only real complaint is that I was given no warning or message indicating that I had allegedly violated the signature rules.

How ya doing, buddy?

Dark Nation · Local time: Apr 4, 2006, 03:07 PM

I explained what part in my above post.

...but I'll spell it out:
It was unclear to me if "Maximum image dimensions: 550 pixels wide, 300 pixels high (total)"
was meant to indicate both images, or the max dimensions of a single image.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Dark Nation · Local time: Apr 5, 2006, 12:37 AM

Originally Posted by Kaleb.G

Because your sig was up for an entire month. That's a major infraction!

The fact that it was up for a month with no warning or anything, would logically be assumed (By me at least) that "Ok, my signature is fine, no rule violation, sunshine and a day at the beach!". If there was an infraction, it should have been addressed much sooner then an entire month. That is the problem I have.

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

If the limits were meant to allow two images that could each be up to 550 pixels wide and 300 pixels high, it would stretch the tables on a 800x600 display, would it not?

OH SHI--

LOGIC!

...Well no denying the truth. I shall shut up about that then >_>
Curiously, how many users here still have 800x600 sized monitors? I figured the average would be 1024x768 or 1280x1024. ...but whatever: I had a HUEG signature, and now I don't

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?