Timeline for What is the policy on signatures and links in answers?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 3, 2020 at 13:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Feb 7, 2012 at 18:30 | history | edited | Lightness Races in Orbit | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 99 characters in body
|
| Feb 7, 2012 at 18:29 | comment | added | Lightness Races in Orbit | (a) It would not be a "real problem". (b) Put it in your profile. Nobody else cares about your online identity, but about the answer. (c) This is not a "forum". | |
| Nov 3, 2009 at 16:34 | history | migrated | from stackoverflow.com (revisions) | ||
| Nov 19, 2008 at 21:19 | comment | added | Steven A. Lowe | and i second the dislike of OpenId ;-) | |
| Nov 16, 2008 at 21:14 | comment | added | Steven A. Lowe | thanks again for your opinion, it is one of the few that people bothered to express! | |
| Nov 16, 2008 at 21:03 | comment | added | David-W-Fenton | Like Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it. I would say sig text that promotes a product would be blatant and commercial. A mere business name and link is not. | |
| Nov 16, 2008 at 20:50 | comment | added | Steven A. Lowe | but i am curious - how does one distinguish "blatant commercial advertising" from 'merely' a link to a website offering professional services? Where is the line drawn, and by whom? | |
| Nov 16, 2008 at 20:45 | comment | added | Steven A. Lowe | thanks for adding to the discussion david! | |
| Nov 16, 2008 at 20:16 | history | answered | David-W-Fenton | CC BY-SA 2.5 |