User talk:Anþony

• If you leave a comment here, I will respond here. If I leave a comment on your talk page, I will watch for comments there.
• Please start a new section with an appropriate title when initiating a discussion.
• Previous discussions are archived in this page's revision history, using the
  permanent links method
  :

1. Before February 25, 2007

Resolved

--Random832 18:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Image:Black kettle.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the

Please note that I have removed the information you added to the article on Paul Bernardo, re: who exactly his employers were after he graduated from university. The company's precise identity is not relevant, and this is the sort of thing that gets complaints. DS 23:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn't add that information. However, I will tell you that you shouldn't be removing information because it might get complaints. Wikipedia is not censored, you are not Wikipedia's lawyer, etc. You shouldn't really concern yourself with determining what is relevant either. If it can be attributed to a reliable source, it is relevant; if it cannot, it is unverifiable and doesn't belong in Wikipedia anyway. – Þ  03:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something can be attributed to a reliable source, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is relevant. It's a question of judgment, and I judged that the precise identity of the company which employed Mr Bernardo during the daytime was not relevant, since he did not commit his atrocities on the job. Also, I may not be Wikipedia's lawyer, but I'm on OTRS, which means that I deal with a lot of e-mail from people who have complaints, valid or otherwise, about article content. DS 04:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to disagree. Not in this specific instance, about which I care very little, but on the principle of the thing. Wikipedia should not fear complaints because they will come no matter what and to do anything else is self-censorship. Wikipedia operates on consensus and on the merits of a case. Simply being loud and annoying shouldn't get anyone special treatment.

Further, its relevance to the case is an issue of judgment, just not yours or mine. If reliable sources say it's relevant, then it is. The principle of verifiability is designed to eliminate the guesswork and subjectivity by deferring to those who are better equipped to decide these things. Again, in this instance I couldn't care less, because it is one factoid out of many in that article that can't be traced back to any of the sources provided. Being unverifiable is more than reason enough to delete it, even though your opinion of its relevance is not. – Þ  06:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find your signature design quite attractive and was wondering if you cared to share the markup used to create it. Also how did you bypass the 255 signiture character limit build into Wikipedia? - Cronium 18:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The markup can be seen readily in the edit window, but here it is anyway:

<font color="#F06A0F">–</font>[[User:Anþony|<span style="border:1px solid #F06A0F;background:white;color:#F06A0F">&nbsp;Þ&nbsp;</span>]]

It's really not that complicated and it's actually only 150 characters. It used to be more involved and therefore had more markup, but I trimmed it down considerably to placate other editors. – Þ  05:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we actually get you people to delete anything just by importing it?! That seems rather silly. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 02:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]