User talk:Int21h

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Sacramento Metropolitan Cable Television Commission, by Erechtheus (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Sacramento Metropolitan Cable Television Commission seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Sacramento Metropolitan Cable Television Commission, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Sacramento Metropolitan Cable Television Commission itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 21:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, someone disagreed with them. Int21h (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was undeleted per request from DES ^(talk). So thank you DES. Int21h (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Esteban Carpio arraignment.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Int21h, I saw that you placed a PROD tag on Federalism in Iraq because it's been merged into Federal government of Iraq. Although the old article doesn't need to be kept, it actually should not be deleted either. If you merge one article into another, simply replace the obsolete article with a redirect to the new one. This is easier and faster, since it doesn't require an administrator to perform the action. Also, it preserves the edit history at the old article, which is required under the GFDL, the license used by Wikipedia. --Reuben (talk) 09:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Iraq 2005 kidnap footage.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's been done. Int21h (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are cruising all of the business method patent articles. Anything in particular you are looking for? It's something of a specialty of mine.--Nowa (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Int21h, thank you for taking the time to comment on WT:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. I am glad you also see how important this guideline will be, since it will determine the inclusion or exclusion of television character and television episodes. Like you, I have really strong views about this too. Ikip (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Esteban Carpio arraignment.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick thank you, for putting the correct seal up for the EOP office. I had looked for it and had no luck....obviously hadn't looked hard enough! Benny45boy (talk) 08:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who initiated the moves, I am taking the liberty of replying before SGT141. As was stated in the move summary, consensus was reached at the Law Enforcement Wikiproject to change the previous method of disambiguation of US law enforcement agency articles. The reason this article was moved was (because the majority of US LEA articles are still redlinks) every state list of law enforcement agencies, such as List of law enforcement agencies in California was edited to reflect the new disambiguation method where the state is added in brackets after the agency name. Therefore, some agencies have been disambiged where they might not have been before. If you feel that Sacramento County Sheriff's Department (California) should be moved back, and given that there are no other agencies with that name, I see no reason why it shouldn't be. ninety:one 14:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not that fussed, but if you want to move it back I'll happily debate the issue properly via the article talk page. I can only apologise for what might have looked like a less-then-perfect attitude on the part of SGT141, I am sure he didn't mean it that way... ninety:one 20:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already moved it back once before. And already started a section on the talk page, which was apparently not seen. I direct you to Talk:Sacramento County Sheriff's Department#Page move. Int21h (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if you took what I said to someone else the wrong way. Nothing personal was directed toward you. And, by the way, the "personality disorder' remark was directed at myself! Again, sorry if I was indelicate.SGT141 (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done. :) Int21h (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see where you have moved the page, but I do see the talk page entry and I apologise. I have tried to explain a little further on the WP. 20:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

A little over a year ago (in April 2008) a day or so after I reverted the move. Int21h (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(2/3 * X) + (2/3 *Y) = 2/3 (X+Y), is true for mathematics. But a veto override doesn't work exactly like that. It needs a 2/3rds of both and houses, not just 2/3 of Congress as a whole. For example If the House votes for 100% (435-0) and the Senate votes against 0% (0-100), then it's 435-100, which is more than 2/3, but won't override a veto. —Markles 19:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Int21h,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

• Each casebook will have a subpage.

• Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
• It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{anchors}} in Wikipedia (example).
• Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.

• I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants.

2. If you're a law student,

• Email http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Hornbook to your classmates, and tell them to do the same.
• Contact me directly via talk page or email about coordinating a chapter of "Student WP:Hornbook Editors" at your own school.

(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)

3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 05:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On October 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 21:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Int, please provide edit summaries--I think I see what you're working on, but a grand removal of references always raises eyebrows. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of National Broadband Plan, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.speedmatters.org/blog/archive/fcc-takes-first-step-to-develop-national-broadband-plan. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Public Domain. Int21h (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan. I created this article immediately after the announcement of the plan, using the plan's full name. "The National Broadband Plan" isn't very specific since any nation could have such a plan. I made sure to include in my article the distinctive content you contributed to the shorter article when you were unaware of mine. I saw no reason to replace my introduction with yours, but anyone can certainly change my introduction to something better.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've looked at my article. Thanks.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you seem to just be fixing your own work. But I guess that means you approve of mine. Time will tell.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I approve or not is irrelevant. The relevant part is that you made an edit (a redirect in this case) in good faith, and since your article predates my stub there is no reason to suggest your edits are incorrect. Int21h (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I probably should have asked someone, but when I found the article I used as a source today I had forgotten what the heck I called my article. So I went on a hunt that showed me there was a place where I should have directed people to my article, and now it does. I knew there didn't need to be a duplicate, and I made sure anything from yours was covered in mine.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with the current article's title is its long and its not the common name here in the states. Many people are likely to wikilink to National Broadband Plan. But there are articles that don't have anyone expanding them and I really don't care at the moment, so I will leave that discussion for later. :) Int21h (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I used the official title I found in one of the sources. I've changed it once because another source used another official title. I suppose it's something we can discuss, but "National Broadband Plan" will be useless in any other country.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useless? See the Department of Trade and Industry. The title is not useless outside the UK. Notice that since it is the most common meaning when someone mentions "Department of Trade and Industry", it gets the title, even though there is a "Department of Trade and Industry" in the Philippines. My guess is that the National Broadband Plan will not redirect to a disambiguation page but to this article because the other plans are not named as such; in which case I say the article be renamed. Even if there is a similarly named plan, the article could be named as such as the most common meaning of the term. Or rename it National Broadband Plan (United States) if you wish to pre-disambiguate, but people will likely not pre-disambiguate their wikilinks (me included), so there is sure to be alot of redirects. Unfortunately when your the biggest English speaking country in the world, or England, you tend to dominate the English namespace. Int21h (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think other countries' plans will be called "National Broadband Plan", I can accept that. "National Broadband Plan (United States)" seems like a good idea. I'll throw it out there.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note, I replied to your post at Help_talk:Archiving_a_talk_page#ongoing_discussions_and_how_to_continue_an_.22archived.22_discussion. -- œ^™ 14:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just saw your post on the merge discussion. To be honest, I can't think of an admin I know who I would feel comfortable asking to make such a merge. Most of the admins I have encountered are cowards when it comes to Israli-Arab issues and to be blunt, don't have the balls to make controversial actions. Is there an official way to ask an uninvolved admin to merge articles once consensus is established, which it has been? If you can show me where to do it, I'll be happy to get it done. Breein1007 (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck... I have no idea. The whole Palestine issue is a fucking mess. Int21h (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your edits at Talk:Judiciary of Jamaica. Your edits were fine given the Sheehan and Black book, but unfortunately, the authors got it wrong in this case. If you don't agree, let's discuss it at the article talk page. Thanks for your work on this topic, which needs a lot more attention. --Amble (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you think so, but when you and a reliable source disagree, well, the reliable source wins. Please find a reliable source to back your claims. Int21h (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, that came off kind of terse... Int21h (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't forget to include edit summaries. 0¹⁸ (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nice accomodative edit, feel free to add a "post-election controversy" if you want to. (it seems you wanted to put fraud under controversies)Lihaas (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary as of yet; it would be the only subsection, and that is uncommon for that topic. Int21h (talk) 07:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the article Federal taxation in the United States as proposed for deletion. Your prior discussions with User:Morphh indicate that most of the article was copied from Taxation in the United States. While I agree that the topic is of sufficient length and notability that it could be a separate article, I believe the needs of the community are better served with a single article. Further, trying to maintain two high level articles, one of which is merely a subset of the other, will impose too great an editing burden and lead to many errors and contradictions. I believe the Federal taxation article should be no more than a redirect to Taxation in the United States. I have proposed that the WP:Taxation group undertake a major overhaul of the Taxation article. I invite you to help with that effort, which will require lots of help. Comments welcome on my talk page or the Federal tax article talk page. Thanks. Oldtaxguy (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've been away from the discussion you started on renaming Palestine, I think me and Alinor have come to a compromise of Palestine linking to Palestine (disambiguation) but the third man involved in discussions (NightW) refuses to allow any compromise, please give your thoughts on the talk page. thanks, Passionless (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Honduran Council of Private Enterprise requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Zachlipton (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Honduran Council of Private Enterprise, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Ok, I see you added a bit, but please don't remove speedy deletion templates from articles you've created. I'll hold off for a while in the hope that this becomes a good article! I suggest adding citations to reliable sources about this organization, as third party mentions are needed to satisfy WP:N. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Happy editing. Zachlipton (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it on purpose. I usually don't, but the article clearly does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Int21h (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Al-Haramain v. Obama, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. My76Strat 00:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response to the article talkpage. I stand corrected on my original assessment. The CSD tag has been removed and I apologize for my initial error. Happy editing. My76Strat 00:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a suggestion on the article talk p: since this was according to the sources one of a number of very similar cases ruled on simultaneously, it might be better to write an article on the group, though I am not sure how to title it, and make redirects from the individual case names. As a single district court ruling, this one may not be notable on its own. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have at it. I just wanted it off my Sandbox. The article referenced mention some other cases, but I don't think they have made it as far. It seems to be one of the only cases regarding the wiretapping scandal to have made it to a successful judgment. Int21h (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now. Thanks. The Government of Kosovo article was confusing me. =p TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 11:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Thank you. Int21h (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a move request discussion going on at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority#Requested move, with which you were previously involved. I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new discussion. Nightw 11:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: An RFC is being conducted here at Talk:Hard diskdrive#RFC on the use of the IEC prefixes. The debate concerns this table which includes columns comparing SI and Binary prefixes to describe storage capacity. We welcome your input

You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Computing --RaptorHunter (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

damn fine work Decora (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The move request at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority was closed, so we're now taking suggestions for an alternative. As you were involved in the previous discussion, I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new one. Please lodge your support for a proposal, or make one of your own. Night w2 (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is an abysmal vanity piece. Agree with comments on discussion page. Will continue with slow-motion repairs, but some help might be handy.Borgmcklorg (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

. . . for the edit on MBSs. Much easier to follow! -- Jo3sampl (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks again for "The trust securitizes the pools by issuing mortgage-backed securities". -- Jo3sampl (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Int21h. Recently you renamed "Gun-Free School Zones Act" to "Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990". However not long ago there was a discussion which resulted in the opposite decision. You can see that at Talk:Gun-Free School Zones Act#Requested move. Check it out. Based on that, I think it would be best to put the article back the way it was. (If you reply here I will see what you say.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 09:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Int21h, now that we've reached a consensus on the naming of the GFSZA article, would you please remove the "1995" from the filename of the ATF letter contained on the page to avoid any confusion. This was something I (mistakenly) put in when I uploaded it. Thanks, MoonOwl2010 (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. What does Mudwater say though? Int21h (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't said anything, please remove the "1995" from the file name of the ATF letter. MoonOwl2010 (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Int21h? Are you still reading this? Please rename the ATF letter file on the Gun Free School Zones Act article by removing the "1995" from the file name. MoonOwl2010 (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have reverted this edit that you made to the article above.

You should not treat a statement that a provision of an Act of Parliament says something as being unsourced unless you have looked at a printed copy of the Act, such as this one here (which was linked to in the article), and the printed copy of the Act says something different.

Since there is a vast industry devoted to republishing Acts of Parliament, both in the public and private sector, I have no doubt that the section in question is notable.James500 (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message.

I have no problem with putting a summary/introduction/overview at the top of the article. I just don't think that the entire article should be turned into a summary.

My intention was to expand the existing sections of the article and then put a summary at the top in addition to the detailed information below it.

I also think that any summary should probably be written from scratch, because the original content of this article was somewhat inaccurate and I am still in the process of trying to fix it.James500 (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made two revisions here that I think will make you happy. I have inserted two new headings "genaral information" and "specific provisions of this Act" and regrouped the existing sections of the article under them. I am sorry, but until a few minutes ago, I honestly could not understand what you were asking me to do.James500 (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed what I was looking for. Excellent. Int21h (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I am afraid that it does not make a great deal of sense to me but I shall try to answer as best as I can.

I think that the effect of section 15(2) is that the Act extends to the United Kingdom, subject to any Order made under section 15(3). I think that certain offences under the Act committed in the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the colonies are cognisable as offences under the law of the United Kingdom by section 15(1)(b). I do not think that any of the offences under the Act are cognisable as offences under the law of any of those places (i.e. in the local courts) because the Act does not extend to those places. I think that those places either have their own secrecy laws (I think this is the case in Jersey at least), or the effect of section 16(5) is that section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 is still in force in those places.

I also think that both "extent" and "jurisdiction" are terms of art and that you are misapplying them.

(An Order was made under section 15(3) for the former colony of Hong Kong, but I have not determined if is still in force.)James500 (talk) 09:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message.

I think that jurisdiction, in this context, is the ability to try the offence. I think the ability to commit an offence is called "capacity" and I have added that word as a heading by making this edit. Is that acceptable? James500 (talk) 11:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in as much as there is a section heading for significantly related items. I think it should be named something else, as I have never seen "Capacity" used as a section heading in legal articles, but this is a minor issue. Int21h (talk)

"Capacity" is used as a cross heading in the 1999 edition of Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice at para 18-12 (which relates to the capacity of a person to aid and abet a crime they cannot commit as a principal) and, IIRC, as the title of a chapter in the twelf edition of the textbook "Card, Cross and Jones Criminal Law" (which, IIRC, contains, in particular, a discussion of the capacity for crime of children, insane persons and corporations). James500 (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Int21h! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

I think you have answered my question. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not that knowledgeable of the situation to have a distinct opinion but I can agree with you on many accounts. The only thing I tend to disagree is the assertion that Serbian civilian institutions are in control of Northern Kosovo. Here I take that Serbian civilian institutions means civilian institutions of Republic of Serbia. --biblbroks (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my guess is that no, Serbian officials do not officiate, but that things are conducted in the name of Serbia, not the name of the Republic of Kosovo or EULEX. For example, I think there are elected Serbian officials operating in the area. Int21h (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not denying that. I am just wondering do those Serbian officials have real control. Or are there/they instead some Northern Kosovo officials who have more control? --biblbroks (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Republic police are not recognized as such, and were violently confronted when they tried to assert control, then left; EULEX manages policing AFAIK. Serbian elections are held there, and I would assume run local municipal government structures to the extent that Republic officials run local municipal government structures in the rest of the area. I will see if I can find info. Int21h (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But even if it is so that doesn't mean that Republic of Serbia has control over those "government structures". Consider only the recent border crossing issues. --biblbroks (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On that point I must disagree. They are elected officials, elected in the name of Serbia, under the Serbian law of a Serbian government, and operate thereunder. Control by these officials would imply control by Serbia. The only question in my mind is whether or not these (local Serbian) officials actually have control. The border crossings are all controlled by EULEX, from what the EULEX officials are saying. I heard a EULEX official say that EULEX officers man all border crossings, so the spat is probably about the presence or involvement of Republic officials. Int21h (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Int21h, there's currently an ongoing discussion about splitting the Stop Online Piracy Act page at Talk:Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#ONGOING_DISCUSSION_-_Splitting_the_Article. You've familiarized yourself with the entry before, and your insight and perspective on the matter would be appreciated. Hope to see you there, Sloggerbum (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CalStats has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Hello. You have a new message at WT:Manual of Style's talk page. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 17:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This for you. Wrightwood906 (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National law enforcement agencies of Ecuador, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Green Giant (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please use WP:TFD instead of {{merge}} for templates. Mark Hurd (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Iraq Talabani w al-Nujeifi 11nov10 lowres.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. January (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed this edit that you made to the above article. What is the source of the name "Slanderous Reports Act 1275"? I am not aware of a short title having been given to that chapter and the article Statute of Westminster 1275 does not say what the source is either. James500 (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the short title given to it on the Wikisource page; I have no reliable sources giving any of these short titles. The long titles are from a book titled "The Statutes at Large from the Magna Carta to the End of the Last Parliament, 1761", volume 1, by Owen Ruffhead, published around 1763. I have edited that article to remove the unconfirmed short title. Int21h (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The mortgage-backed securities article contains this text:

If the lovina acquired a pool at a premium (>100), as is common for higher coupons then they are at risk for prepayment. If the purchase price was 105, the investor loses 5 cents for every dollar that's prepaid, possibly significantly decreasing the yield. This is likely to happen as holders of higher-coupon MBS have good incentive to refinance.

I tried to look up "lovina" -- no joy -- and then found that someody had already asked about the word on the talk page. Could you clarify or correct the article? -- Thanks -- Jo3sampl (talk) 00:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have ignored those sections. They are holdovers from the poorly written version before I had a go at it. They discuss MBS-specific pricing theory; coupon rates, yield, etc. Many of the examples are likely OR, but may have use for someone who is familiar with the area, so I, as a rule, do not challenge it. Int21h (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Le-duc-tho.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a disupte at Talk:Palestinian_National_Authority#Organization_or_Place.3F and Talk:Palestinian_National_Authority#Palestinian_Authority_-_an_organization_.28government.29_or_a_geopolitical_entity.3F to weather the PNA is a government like the Government of Hong Kong and the Kurdistan Regional Government, or a geopolitical entity like Hong Kong and Iraqi Kurdistan. I'm telling you this because you seamed to express an opinion on this at Talk:Palestinian_National_Authority#Economy_and_demographics_belong_in_State_of_Palestine. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a new discussion on what article State of Palestine#Demographics belongs in. I'm telling you this because you participated in the previous one. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thanks for all your recent work on California county governments. These are excellent articles. I just have one problem, which is the wording of the opening paragraph about the relationship between county and city governments. You are using this description:

Much of the Government of California is in practice the responsibility of county governments, while the governments of incorporated municipalities such as the city of Stockton and the city of Tracy provide additional, often non-essential services. The county government provides countywide services such as elections and voter registration, law enforcement, jails, vital records, property records, tax collection, and public health. In addition it is the local government for all unincorporated areas, and provides services such as law enforcement to some incorporated cities under a contract arrangement.

I don't think it's accurate to describe the services provided by cities as "additional" or as "often non-essential". The cities provide things like law enforcement and public safety, as well as libraries, parks and recreation, planning and zoning, utilities, trash collection, etc. These are hardly "non-essential" services. Before I saw that you were using the same wording in many articles, I changed the wording in the San Diego County article. I replaced those three sentences with

Much of the Government of California is in practice the responsibility of county governments such as the Government of San Diego County. The County government provides countywide services such as elections and voter registration, law enforcement, jails, vital records, property records, tax collection, public health, and social services. In addition the County serves as the local government for all unincorporated areas. Some chartered municipalities such as the city of San Diego and the city of Chula Vista provide their own law enforcement, public safety, libraries, parks and recreation, zoning, and similar services. Other incorporated cities have some or all of these services provided by the County under a contract arrangement.

Let's agree between ourselves how to word the San Diego County article, and then use similar wording in all the articles. Is that OK with you? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 04:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Now that I reread it I think we should drop "law enforcement" from the County responsibilities. The County provides law enforcement only in unincorporated areas. --MelanieN (talk) 04:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a correct analysis and solution. Sheriffs have jurisdiction countywide, while peace officers (police officers in general) have statewide jurisdiction for police duties. As deputies of an elected county government official (the Sheriff), they have responsibilities to the citizens of the county, including those who voted for him that may be in an incorporated city. As I understand it, they just pass the buck in those areas for any reason possible for operational and budgetary issues, but they still can. Many things like foreclosing your house are done by the Sheriff, not police, even if its in the city. Int21h (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying that the county is responsible for police services unless they choose to pass the buck to the cities? I don't think that's correct. I think police services are one of the responsibilities of a chartered city, which they can contract out to the county. The Orange County website says that explicitly: "Many cities in Orange County have their own police department; however, others choose to contract law enforcement services with the County."[1] --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course change it. It probably propagated from information from the original sources. I think those analytic introduction sentences without referrences are obvious candidates for copyediting. (IOW go ahead I am not attached to any material I added that wasn't referrenced; if it was referrenced, that's different.)

As for my reasoning, in short: because counties already can, and often do, provide them countywide. I justify it as cities are merely corporations, albeit with governmental powers, while counties are actually actually government entities that California only refers to as "subdivisions". Pursuant to this configuration, as i understand it, cities (like many special districts) can create Police Departments within their jurisdiction, but the county was already providing that service, this service is merely overriden or supplemented. (Since all land must be part of a county, and all counties must have Sheriffs.) Those other services you mentioned are also provided by the county and various special districts, as can be seen in any unincorporated area in any county in California. Some counties provide services commenserate with cities, like garbage collection, while others don't. And cities can overrule the county in some situations, others it can't.. But the main argument is that those services already were, or at least could have been, provided by the county.

These are early versions. Each county and city relationship may be unique; I really don't know the law. But I felt something needs to said relating the overlapping levels of government. Int21h (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree something needs to be said about this subject. I'll see if I can find something in California law that spells out the responsibilities of a county vs. the responsibilities of a chartered city (chartered cities are also a creation of the state). Thanks for your willingness to talk about this. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some info about law enforcement: According to this [2], policing is specifically the responsibility of the cities, per California's constitution. "The 1879 Constitution has two significant aspects. First, it gave affirmative grants of authority to cities, including the police and charter city powers, which remain in place today. The police power allows cities to make and enforce all local, police, sanitary and other regulations not in conflict with state law." --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, they both have police powers. Because cities do does not mean the Sheriffs don't anymore. Opinion No. 97-1006 of the California Attorney General: "The jurisdiction of a sheriff to investigate crimes extends throughout the county, including incorporated cities. (8 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 149, 150-151 (1946).) The fact that a sheriff has concurrent jurisdiction with a city police chief within the boundaries of a city does not diminish the authority of the sheriff. (People v. Scott (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 268, 280; 8 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen., supra, 150.)" There is alot of info in that link, I will probably use it as ref. Int21h (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And your proposed solution to add this text to all county articles runs up against some problems. First, what services a city provides in addition or in lieu of the county is variable; unlike a county, they have full control over their structure and don't have to create for example a police force, as is obviously the case in these "law enforcement contract cities". And what of those cities, for example in Los Angeles County, that may not provide library, parks and recreation, or zoning functions? (Instead, in many cases, leaving these service to special districts.) As I understand, there is no law that says cities must have those services; less like a county with those services I listed, which the California Statutes and Constitution mandates they have, called "local mandates". Int21h (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without getting too deep into the weeds, I think we could use a generic comment like this for most California counties - with or without names of specific cities as examples:

Much of the Government of California is in practice the responsibility of county governments, such as the Government of (name of county). The County government provides countywide services such as elections and voter registration, some law enforcement functions, jails, vital records, property records, tax collection, public health, and social services. In addition the County serves as the local government for all unincorporated areas. Some chartered municipalities such as (example) and (example) provide their own police, public safety, libraries, parks and recreation, zoning, and similar services. Other cities such as (example) and (example) arrange to have the County provide some or all of these services on a contract basis.

Would something like this work, or what wording would you suggest? --MelanieN (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Literally the only wrong is we have to analyze each of those example cities to see what services they provide. I have just been picking the largest by population or area, and otherwise notable cities, because such a procedure is fast and does not block. We may not really know what services each example city provides, so as we get into smaller counties with city governments that are not well understood, it will be a block to submission of a stub article. This block is significant over many articles. I think leaving the city services unspecified but exemplified unless the services provided is known:

Much of the Government of California is in practice the responsibility of county governments, such as the Government of (name of county). The County government provides countywide services such as elections and voter registration, law enforcement, jails, vital records, property records, tax collection, libraries, public health, and social services. In addition the County serves as the local government for all unincorporated areas. Some chartered municipalities such as (example) and (example) provide services such as police, public safety, libraries, parks and recreation, zoning. Other cities such as (example) and (example) arrange to have the County provide some or all of these services on a contract basis.

And, in my opinion, the sheriff provides most law enforcement services, but the "most" should be left out of the introduction so if details come to light about how important or significant they are the introduction doesn't need to be haggled over. The word "functions" is superfluous. So really, yes, what you said, but without qualifying which law enforcement functions, and using "provide services such as" instead of "provide", and pretty close to what I originally had.

As I see it, the only difference between your edits and mine is that

• you suppose county-provided law enforcement is somehow diminished in cities, or does not provide fundamental law enforcement, which isn't true for every county. if its actually true, then OK. But its less likely than the default: that the "jurisdiction of a sheriff to investigate crimes extends throughout the county"
• you suppose what services are provided is a known fact for each example city government

The first I just disagree with and think should be left to those articles, and the second is a "go ahead -- if you know". Int21h (talk) 02:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think we're in agreement. The "examples" can simply be omitted (and probably should be) for smaller counties or other cases where it isn't obvious or worthwhile to find examples to cite. I think we might add the modifier "municipal" to the type of services cities provide. If that's OK let's go with it:

Much of the Government of California is in practice the responsibility of county governments, such as the Government of (name of county). The County government provides countywide services such as elections and voter registration, law enforcement, jails, vital records, property records, tax collection, public health, and social services. In addition the County serves as the local government for all unincorporated areas. Some chartered cities such as (example) and (example) provide municipal services such as police, public safety, libraries, parks and recreation, and zoning. Other cities such as (example) and (example) arrange to have the County provide some or all of these services on a contract basis.

Are we good? Thanks for working this out! --MelanieN (talk) 03:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. :) Your welcome! Int21h (talk) 03:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My extreme apologies go out to you, and those affected by my investigation. I know my words can say nothing for about the 3 weeks you have been blocked, but my sincere apologies. Another CheckUser pointed out to me today that the technical information for Tor is generally spoofed, making it appear like everyone editing off of Wikipedia was using the exact same technical information. There was also a long term sockpuppet that was using some of the IPs that you edited off, and that's why I had issued the block, because it appeared that you were editing in conjunction with that user. My words, I know can't say enough to make up for the time, and I'm genuinely speechless with this revealed to me, because I made such a big mistake. I will understand completely if you are still mad with me after this. If you need anything though, my desk is definitely open to help you. I have also restored your IPBE to you. Sincerely, -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 12:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To quote wiktionary:

“

incompetent Unskilled, lacking normally expected degree of ability.

”

Can you see where I am going with this? Int21h (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't agree with your assessment of my skills, but I understand how you could say that after what has happened. I'm sorry for the inconvenience I caused. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 11:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the edit summary you have used while editing your user page just now. Threats of harm, even when not intended to be serious, are a serious matter and should not appear on Wikipedia. — Coren ^(talk) 23:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nor should incompetent editors hold administrative privileges. If you are implying my edit comment was meant as a threat of harm, you are mistaken, it was not. If it could be construed as such, by all means remove it; the edit comment is just that, a comment on an edit, and is in this case obviously superfluous. Int21h (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad stuff happens. We are sorry that Wikipedia has problems, and they sometimes affect good people. However, when a problem occurs, it is best to be calm and to ask what happened, and whether similar things have occurred before, and what can be done to rectify the situation. We do not remove good admins who perform very many very difficult and thankless tasks due to a couple of isolated blunders. Wikipedia would be swimming in muck if the admins and checkusers were not available. Perhaps we will get perfect people in due course, but in the meantime we have to tolerate occasional problems. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did ask. Only now, after I have called for their resignation, do they bother to answer. I guess they thought they could sweep me under the rug like they have everyone else. Oops. Mistakes, mistakes everywhere. This is not a permanent removal. (I do not think they should be banned.) They should step down and run again. With all the prior discussion that comes with it. And I am sure there are many other qualified Wikipedians that can do the job, all Wikipedians are not incompetent, you know. Int21h (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain we've not interacted before so here's some advice. Calling for the heads of ArbCom and administrators because a few checkusers made a mistake when blocking you is a very significant overreaction. It would be like calling for the President of the United states to step down because a bureaucrat in the FCC messed up filling in a form. My advice to you is to step away for a day or two and consider the fact that you've been apologized to and multiple editors in good standing have suggested that you move on from this complaint. Hasteur (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or it would be like calling for the President to step down because the Attorney General "mistakenly" imprisoned someone for life, without so much as a trial, and he didn't as much as even reprimand them. (So sorry. Here's your life back.) Significant overreaction? It really depends on your view I guess. I obviously don't think its overreacting. Someone must be held responsible, and we don't vote for the Attorney General. Int21h (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And even the President stands for re-election every once in a while. Int21h (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

but if people like DeltaQuad, who generate virtually no content, stopped their sock/witch hunts, how else would they contribute to wikipedia? talentless people need to contribute, too, and if a few innocent editors get trampled during the hunt, that's just the price they have to pay. 174.141.213.63 (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like a place where you can comment on your treatment (and the sad state of Wikipedia governance in general), come by and warm your hands here. It can be a bit rough, but no-one from here can touch you there.→StaniStani  03:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you can be touched anywhere. In the confessional or on wikipediocracy.com. There just is no comparison to the Wikimedia projects IMO. The discussion about the future of the projects must take place here, at the very minimum, against all those like DeltaQuad who seek to eliminate his foes in one mighty swing to which there is little defense. Int21h (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you well, and hope you can make headway.→StaniStani  06:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You have been here longer than I, and have been a significant contributor indeed. I understand your rage at your treatment, both initial and subsequent. However, I respectfully also suggest you step away for at least 48 hours. Never edit while angry... and I cheerfully admit I am still trying to learn how to take my own advice. With best wishes, Jusdafax 08:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My rage is over, for the time being, but I reserve the right to return to my rage at any moment--without warning--should I, and I alone, deem it necessary. As to the "48 hours", I hope you understand there have been numerous "48 hours" in the last couple months, enough to go around plenty times over. But in any event thank for your attention. Int21h (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how my name got into the PR wikiproject list of those with expertise on the judiciarty of PR: I am certainly not an expert in that area. I looked at your article and it looks great, but I am not qualified to judge its contents, as I don't have a complete picture of what courts has jurisdiction over what, etc. I *AM* bilingual, so if there are any (hopefully short) translations you want me to do or to review for you, I can help you in that area. The article does need sources. If I knew where to go for them I would help, but again I only have a spotty (layman's) knowledge of the PR judicary system. Feel free to contact me with any follow-ups. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck in your quest. Many wikipedians are absolutely paranoid about socks. By the way are you aware about this user's case? It was very similar to yours. The admin who blocked him was forced to resign. 71.198.250.115 (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. I shall look into it. Apparently, as I suspected, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Int21h (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Int21h. Sorry for the troubles you've had to endure here at Wikpedia. You are correct that this is only the tip of the iceberg. I have been trying to bring attention to the problem for many years Both Wikipedia talk:Editor engagement experiments#Suggestion: Unblock invalid rangeblocks as well as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 2#Guess how many IPs are blocked are a couple of recent examples. Unfortunately my pleas fall on deaf ears, but I keep trying. I encourage you to keep fighting for what you believe is a right and just solution and hope you are successful. Your efforts are crucial to the health of the project, which has been having problems with editor retention for many years. Kind regards. 64.40.54.247 (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just to let you know that I have started the DR process with DeltaQuad in relation to the wrongful block of you for sockpuppetry here. I would urge you refrain from hyperbole if you decide to participate. Very formal, civil, language is the only hope for taking this matter further. I may ask you to co-sponsor an RfC/U in the future if necessary. --Surturz (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DeltaQuad has closed the thread, indicating that he will not continue further talk page discussion on the matter. Audit Subcommittee seems to be the next step. I'll need to ask you a few questions if you want me to prepare a submission. --Surturz (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I worked out what I needed to know from your interactions on DQ's talkpage. I have submitted the complaint to WP:AUSC, the text of which is here: User:Surturz/DQAUSC. --Surturz (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HI. WP:AUSC have come back with their decision on my complaint against DeltaQuad's block of you: see (this link). Let me know when you've read it - I'd like to discuss it with you, but I don't want to prejudice your reading of it, so I'll comment on it after you've read it. --Surturz (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, let me summarize, with only information of pertinence and with the "fluff" taken out.

On 4 March 2013, the Audit Subcommittee received a complaint by Surturz against DeltaQuad related to DeltaQuad's use of his checkuser permissions to check and block Int21h. …

Int21h requested the IPBE flag via the unblock-en-l mailing list to edit via Tor and was granted the right on December 27, 2011. DeltaQuad Checkusered Int21h on December 27, 2012.

Based on our review of all materials available to us, DeltaQuad had a reasonable basis in fact to Checkuser Int21h and we have found no evidence that DeltaQuad did so in bad faith.

DeltaQuad blocked Int21h on December 28, 2012 with the block log reason of "{{tlx|checkuserblock-account}}". … Other Checkusers concurred in the actions DeltaQuad took. It was determined at a later date that DeltaQuad's block of Int21h was erroneous as a result of unknown information concerning the manner in which Tor and programs associated with Tor process certain technical information. DeltaQuad unblocked Int21h on January 19, 2013 and apologized for having made the block.

Based on our review of all materials, DeltaQuad made a reasonable investigation to obtain relevant facts to support a block of Int21h. DeltaQuad further acted reasonably in blocking Int21h as a result of the facts that were available to him at the time. While there were facts unknown to DeltaQuad that resulted in the block being invalidated, DeltaQuad did not err in failing to obtain extraordinary information beyond the knowledge of the average Checkuser in forming the basis for the block.

Based on our review of all materials, DeltaQuad made a reasonable investigation to obtain relevant facts to support a block of Int21h. DeltaQuad further acted reasonably in blocking Int21h as a result of the facts that were available to him at the time. While there were facts unknown to DeltaQuad that resulted in the block being invalidated, DeltaQuad did not err in failing to obtain extraordinary information beyond the knowledge of the average Checkuser in forming the basis for the block. …

DeltaQuad left notice on Int21h's talk page regarding the block. We find DeltaQuad satisfied his duty to provide notice to Int21h and other users as to the relevant terms of the block through his use of the {{tlx|checkuserblock-account}} template in the block log and via the talk page notice. …

Int21h attempted to appeal the block to a mailing list and via an obscene message on his user talk page on December 31, 2012. Int21h refused to communicate with DeltaQuad via email. MaxSem summarily denied the on-wiki block appeal on December 31, 2012. DeltaQuad was not active on the English Wikipedia while the block appeal was pending on Int21h's talk page. Int21h failed to re-file the unblock request on-wiki or to contact DeltaQuad via email. …

However, DeltaQuad did not breach his duty under WP:ADMINACCT as he was not active when the block appeal was made and rejected, nor was he contacted by the blocked user to contest the block via another means. DeltaQuad's failure to intiate communication in response Int21h's terminated obscene block appeal was not an abusive error or misconduct.

We conclude that DeltaQuad acted reasonably in Checkusering and blocking Int21h. Even though the block was subsequently invalidated, DeltaQuad's block was appropriately made based on a reasonable interpretation of the evidence available at the time. DeltaQuad failed to promptly respond to Int21h's rejected obscene block appeal. DeltaQuad's failure was not the result of abuse, misconduct or indicative of incompetence in holding Checkuser status. Therefore, the AUSC has completed its investigation and is submitting this report to the Arbitration Committee with a recommendation that no further action be taken.

End quote. So yeah, there are some lessons to be gleaned from this. The comments "there were facts unknown to DeltaQuad" and "extraordinary information" stand out. Pretty much says to me incompetence is OK and it is up to the blocked User to make said incompetence obvious. Its pretty much repeated over and over.

Unsurprising. Hence, my go at ArbCom. They will find any excuse, I knew that from the start. I did not start this with the intent of giving some easy compromise to let them save face. The statement "extraordinary information beyond the knowledge of the average Checkuser" just adds fuel to my fire to get ArbCom disbanded. As I have said repeatedly, I am the only one to have made his incompetence too obvious to refute. All this does is say that average CheckUsers are incompetent, so its OK. What I did was not extraordinary. I correctly guessed, AFAIK, the information they relied on. Guessed. They say they came to their senses all their own. As if I could have just said "you are wrong" and they would have determined this stuff all their own. The only question in my mind is if they are lying to me or lying to themselves.

RFC 2616 ... 14.43 User-Agent ... This is for statistical purposes, the tracing of protocol violations, and automated recognition of user agents for the sake of tailoring responses to avoid particular user agent limitations. User agents SHOULD include this field with requests.

Not "MUST" but "SHOULD". Obviously, I don't like others' statistical purposes. They ignored the User-Agent header's purpose; it is not "for the sake of" tracking users. That is incompetence. You know what my User-Agent says? The most common User-Agent string possible, but a valid User-Agent nonetheless. That is not a violation of protocol, it is safe browsing practice. I didn't even do it; the programmer that made it did. And they want to turn it into a giant deceit that caused their incompetence.

And, of course, you won't find something (evidence) if you don't look for it. Outrageous. The question really is, how many banned users fell trap to DeltaQuad's "mistakes"? Or do they all get the same response I got: appeal denied. (That's rhetorical. We know now all their appeals were denied given this is the first time this has supposedly happened.) They obviously don't care. What is "evidence" of bad faith? They obviously refuse to accept "competence" as a requirement to holding the position, so one can always feign incompetence, as happened (IMO) here after much wrangling.

Yes, of course give your opinion, and thank you. Int21h (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And also, may I say your complaint describes the situation beautifully. Thank you. I do not believe the points you raised were even addressed in full. Particularly about how correlation is not causation vis-a-vis my account. Int21h (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think my reading of the decision is the same as yours, in summary "DeltaQuad did absolutely nothing wrong". I was astonished that they did not make a single recommendation on how to avoid the situation in the future. I agree with you that they did not really address the central error: that there was absolutely no publicly available evidence that you were socking - how does an innocent party refute secret evidence? I'm not sure if you want to drop this or continue. I feel there are few main avenues to continue if that is what you want:

1. Stay with community self-regulation and raise a policy RfC to change the CheckUser policy so that for positive CheckUser determinations, the CheckUser must provide some minimum level of publicly available evidence e.g. the name of at least one other (allegedly) related account.
2. Make a complaint to the Wikimedia foundation (WMF) ombudsman. This is a bit fraught because WMF is not as accountable to the editor community - at least we have elections for ArbCom. OTOH the Ombudsman is the precisely for the situation when self-regulation fails.

By the way, I mentioned your case in my submissions to the 2013 AUSC appointments discussion, hope that's okay. --Surturz (talk) 06:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope its OK too! ;) But seriously I do not nave a solution unfortunately. I really just came across the subject of the very real world issue of administration and governance recently. Until then I just edited in ignorance of the very serious issues being explored here. I am really just hoping the comments and wikileaks keep pouring in, so at the very least the "edge cases" can be better understood, and I can get a better understanding of the government of the projects. The scope of my review is expanding rapidly, and every "small" issue like this can, as we are seeing, be quite difficult. I just don't know. If anything I want more discussion and input.

My first impression of the WMF staff has been that they are getting that walled garden mentality. Where they are just so burdened that they start getting very overwelmed to the point where they have an information overload and start relying on others for the "solutions", those with more expertise and familiarity, leading to a static "decision path" where their decisions tend to be conservative. They tend to just ignore, or worse reject, problems without solutions. It is very political. Politicians in D.C can't even go to the liquor store without this huge motorcade with guys hanging out SUVs with machine guns. Needless to say, they never bother doing anything informal or meet people outside their sphere of influence, and like I said develope quite static worldviews, Washington D.C. worldviews. The WMF staff's sphere of influence are the administrators and other Wikipedia Big Whigs. Any move will necessarily be political.

And the problem very well might be architectural or a policy issue, in which case the "not my purview" factor comes in, especially vis-a-vis the Ombudsman. Remember, any excuse will do. The Ombudsman is unlikely to buck any trend without irrefutable evidence, which is just not here. "Extraordinaory" is a key word. So like I said I just don't know. Int21h (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Int21h. Just now saw your comment on your userpage. I went through all the same things as you, when it happend to me in 2007. When the block was finally lifted—two and a half years later—I went through the same things again. Both times I started digging, finding all the bad blocks, and preparing a report so that something could be done. Unfortunately, the community never listens when it's a single voice, even if they are pointing out multiple problems. It ended up being very frustrating in the end. I think the only solution is to have multiple voices presenting the problems to the community. I can give you TONS of links, but I don't think it will do any good unless there are many voices saying something needs to change. Please don't read this as being discouraging—because something needs to be done—but I wanted you to know what is likely to happen. We do need to stop the bad blocks for the health of the project, but it is an enormous task to get it fixed. My suggestion would be to organize people before spending time on a report. The people at WT:WER and WT:Teahouse are likely to be the most understanding. Kind regards. 64.40.54.192 (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to look over and comment on whatever you compile. I have been editing Wikipedia fairly heavily for about seven years and have had my own run-ins with Wikipedia's administration, so I would be willing to provide some input. Cla68 (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi again, Int21h, I just posted a dozen examples of bad blocks at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Restrict rangeblocks to CheckUsers in case you're still looking in to this. Best regards. 64.40.54.79 (talk) 05:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't have a copy of the page any more. You'd laugh if you saw it, it was a picture of a lantern and about five diffs of dodgy admin actions with some snide commentary from me. Yet it produced (I think) the second largest WP:MfD discussion in Wikipedia history (according to Wikipedia Signpost, anyway). I did learn a lot about WP:MFD and WP:DRV though.
There really is no joy or success in trying to change Wikipedia's processes. The best you can do is submit the admins to scrutiny via WP:ADMINACCT and WP:DR, but you really need to do your homework: thoroughly read the relevant policies, keep all your diffs and notes offsite, check and re-check any statement of fact, etc. At the end of the day, even if you do manage to get a bad admin desysopped, there is no reward: no-one is going to give you a barnstar for it, and for all you know that bad admin was going to quit next week anyway because he's got a new girlfriend.
You'd be much better off going back to working on content, getting a few articles to WP:FA status, then spending some time at WP:AFD and WP:RFA, and becoming an admin yourself. --Surturz (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. As soon as I have time I will call for it to be undeleted and restored, or at least re-exposed to the community. Is this OK with you? The material may or may not be of use, but I plain disagree that any sort of review (by a user on their user pages) is review-able content-wise for not making arguments that are recognized by others. This may require changes in policy; this may require changes in ArbCom; it may require such pages to be moved onto Meta to remove policy cruft/wikilawyering excuses. They simply erred on that decision in multiple aspects.

And there is always this question about what to do next, which subject is more important, etc. One of my internal criteria is a topic or subject's "connectedness"--that is, how much the subject affects other subjects, whether its understanding is a barrier to understanding other subjects, and whether it is integral to understand current events... This topic happens to affect almost everything on Wikipedia, and apparently the ability to edit on other projects as well, so it will get my highest priority. Int21h (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really rather you didn't try to resurrect the AdminWatch page. Like I said before, there was actually very little content on the page, and it would be stale now. You'd also be wasting your time: it's already been deleted at WP:MfD twice, there would be zero chance of another WP:DRV succeeding. The original DRV only succeeded because there were two incorrect speedies (WP:CSD#G10 and WP:CSD#G4), the subsequent MfD still deleted the page, so it was just a huge waste of time for everyone. BTW, the CheckUser/Oversight audit subcommittee has acknowledged receipt of my complaint about DQ's block of you. Should hear an answer within three weeks apparently. I'm currently reviewing CheckUser admin action logs to see if there are any other similar wrongful blocks. I'm guessing User:DoRD was one of the three CheckUsers who signed off on your block (see [3]), so I've been looking at his admin actions log and asked him a question here. When you see how many accounts the CheckUsers block on a daily basis, it's easy to see why they don't think blocking you for three weeks was a big deal. It was just one bad block out of a hundred or more good ones as far as they are concerned. --Surturz (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, your page, your choice. I actually don't consider it a waste of time at this point. It is likely that from that discussion it will be easier to make an argument that there is an abuse of privilege and discretion at a fundamental level in the administrative adjudication processes, or at a minimum an intolerable level of incompetence, or possibly even malice (its an assumption of good faith, not a fact-by-fiat). And that's not even saying anything about individual users. These things are easiest to see in retaliatory actions, which is what that whole affair looks like, so it is and they are definitely on my radar.

As for the actions of individual users, like DQ and his 3 amigos, I asked that he step down, he refused, now I have asked ArbCom, and I expect them to refuse as well. IM(not humble at all)O I think such inaction will just give more weight to the argument that they seek something besides the interests of Wikipedia, and should be removed (should they remain obstinate and refuse to step down.)

As for DoRD, I will definitely look into it. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Briefly looking over your WP:DRV affair, I actually think we are looking at a fairly small set of Admins wreaking havoc in their quest to ... whatever it is they do (something tells me not editing Wikipedia articles.) And hence why I actually find your WP:DRV important: a list must be made of what exactly these guys are doing, and that may take quite a while to compile, with considerable technical effort and deletion requests and other adverse Administrator activity trying to thwart it. Int21h (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• this might be of interest to you (the second part, not the first). Regards, Crazynas ^t 14:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hi. im aware of the problems you faced with admincompetence, and thought you might be interested in arbcom member user:hersfold's recent resignation, and user:AGK's attempt to bypass consensus on whether to blacklist wikipediocracy. good luck btw. :) 174.141.213.63 (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just questioned a CU performed by DQ which looks like fishing; see Wikipedia_talk:CheckUser#Fishing.3F. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the SFPUC oversees utility issues in those counties, i added them. however, if its not an active part of the govt of those counties, and only operates from SF, controlling structures in the other counties, not from WITHIN the govt structure of the counties, i can see removing those categories. Im not wedded to this articles categorization, and wouldnt revert edits removing those categories.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. No, I do not think a revert is in order, just a move to the category for the county instead of the county's government. It is done. Int21h (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Sammyday (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Int21h, you don't know me but I admired that in the face of complete adversity, and I agree not mere incompetence but some amount of malice or at least great arrogance, you stood up to them on 27 Feb. and said "I demand you all step down." I've had a similar experience with the administrators and I believe the system is entirely broken and actually encourages abuse from common types, because there is no accountability. FYI, on my page, after great attempt on my part to cooperate, I reject administrative authority until great reform is undertaken, and I assert my right to cleanstart under WP:CIV. [4] This is Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.211.155.203 (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Courts of Alaska is part of a series which transcludes to Courts of the United States, a complete listing of state and federal courts located throughout the United States. Furthermore, it is incorrect to equate "Courts of Alaska" with the Judiciary of Alaska, because courts located in the state include the United States District Court for the District of Alaska, which is not part of the state judiciary. Please make sure that you do not make any changes to Courts of Alaska unless those changes conform to changes in all pages in the series of courts by state. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Sometimes I am too bold. At least now I know who else is active on these pages. Int21h (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have replied on the talk page and I am watching the article. Richard75 (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Int21h, thanks for the reference for NSS 3.15.1. I bumped Network Security Services but as the Mozilla wiki [5] didn't list it as a stable release, I noted this here Talk:Network_Security_Services. The ftp server file dates are 2nd July, but the releasenotes page is the 1st July, which is the date I took. If you know (or care!) pls correct considering I changed the Mozilla site too! Widefox; talk 22:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough. I indeed did take the ftp server file dates, since the release notes do not give a date and I did not see the "Last updated by" at the bottom. But as you surmised I do not care, as it is a fuzzy dating scheme and it is close enough. The only reason I cared was because of the TLS 1.2 capabilities (downgrade attacks, GCM and CCM authenticated encryption suites), as you can probably tell from my edit. I didn't even know those sites were editable... But I guess Firefox and Wikipedia use the same editing model. Int21h (talk)