Recently I noticed one user adding giant MathJaX segments to his/her comments, in a way that looks like a signature:

Ex:
$~~~~~~~$Comment, blah blah blah. $~~~~\style{font-family:wingdings;font-size:400%}J$

I'm mostly asking because I want confirmation that this behaviour is frowned upon.

• Great idea! Now I can make my comments stand out above all the others and get extra attention. Of course I'll have to get a bigger signature than this user since I need mine to stand out above his. Other people may try to muscle in and use even bigger signatures, but I'm here enough I think I can keep up making sure my signature is always the biggest and most eye catching. – Olin Lathrop Jun 10 '12 at 12:12
• @OlinLathrop, your name at the end will always make my eye jump to yours, but I hate dealing with flags on comments so it is better I read your comments first,and sometimes they are pretty hilarious, to avoid having someone have to flag it and send me back to read it later. – Kortuk Jun 10 '12 at 14:43
• @Kortuk - I covered the name, but I really don't see the point. Several of the people here have mentioned the user in question explicitly, as well as one of the answers. Furthermore, the example links tell you who the user is. – Connor Wolf Jun 11 '12 at 0:21
• @FakeName, I did not mean it in any significantly bad way, since we are discussing sight policy in the long term this might be brought back up and removing the specific user makes sense here, we are discussing site policy, not the actions of one user. I was asking you since I assumed you had the image still, otherwise I would have done it myself tomorrow. I am cleaning out the names everywhere else. – Kortuk Jun 11 '12 at 0:27
• @Kortuk - I appreciate that you try to see questions independent of persons, but in this case it's a bit silly IMO: that guy did everything to attract attention, and everybody has seen his comments. They were impossible to overlook. – stevenvh Jun 11 '12 at 5:13
• @Kortuk - I see. Anyways, I did still have the image, so it wasn't too much of a problem. – Connor Wolf Jun 11 '12 at 5:15
• @FakeName, thanks for that. – Kortuk Jun 11 '12 at 5:36
• @Kortuk: If he didn't want mention of it strewn about the internet, then he shouldn't have done it. Protecting this guy from others seeing what a twit he was is silly since he was in fact being a twit. Whatever embarassment he gets from this is deserved. – Olin Lathrop Jun 11 '12 at 12:00
• @OlinLathrop, No, the point of meta is to discuss site policies. Albeit in this case there was a specific user, the reason we discuss on meta is for site-wide policy discussion, as I said below it seems to have been done with the best intention although we did not like it, he was having fun playing with some feature of math-jax, what is there to be embarrassed about? There is just no value in singling out members and discussion member choices on meta in what we consider their errors, why not instead just focusing on improving behavior. This user did remove his comments of his own volition. – Kortuk Jun 11 '12 at 12:12
• @OlinLathrop: No need to go around insulting people for inconsequential gaffes. This isn't Usenet. – endolith Jun 11 '12 at 15:38