User talk:Anþony

Template talk:Onlinesource
--Random832 18:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Black kettle.jpg
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:

Image licensed under a Creative Commons license that specifies "no derivative works" was uploaded after May 19, 2005, is not used in any articles, and which lacks a fair use assertion. (CSD #I3)

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on  explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Iamunknown 07:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC
Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Mbhiii on Wikipedia, regading an issue in which you may have been involved or attempted to resolve. The RFC discussion can be found at Requests for comment/Mbhiii, where you may want to participate.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Bernardo
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)
 * 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. – &#160;Þ&#160;  03:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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. – &#160;Þ&#160;  06:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Signature
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)


 * The markup can be seen readily in the edit window, but here it is anyway:
 * – &amp;nbsp;Þ&amp;nbsp;
 * 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. – &#160;Þ&#160;  05:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/American Sign Language grammar
Can we actually get you people to delete anything just by importing it?! That seems rather silly. – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 02:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia does not care about the official name of anything
Wikipedia does not care about the official name of anything, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not care about the official name of anything and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia does not care about the official name of anything during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 18:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)