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[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, Int21h. You have new messages at Passionless's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hello, Int21h. You have new messages at Passionless's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, Int21h. You have new messages at Template talk:Cite court.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]

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

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

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

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

To quote wiktionary:

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

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

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

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

Thanks, I have replied on the talk page and I am watching the article. Richard75 (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[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[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) 00:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Int21h, I noticed that you recently made a small addition to the Copyright Alert System article. I'm currently working on behalf of the Center for Copyright Information, which, as you probably know, administers the CAS. I've been communicating with a few volunteer editors, especially User:Mjb, to develop on a much-improved draft to replace the current CCI article. I believe that I've addressed most of the feedback I've received, as detailed on Talk:CCI, in my most recent userspace draft. However, mjb has indicated that they're currently busy, and don't have time to review my revisions. If you have time, do you think you could pop over and take a look, and, if the changes look okay, go ahead and move my draft over into the mainspace? Thanks! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 15:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again, just wanted to let you know that another editor took a look at this, so it's now  Done, but thanks anyway! Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Freedom of Speech for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Hope you have a great day. -buffbills7701

As you are correct to remove the hatnote at Transport Layer Security, I would welcome your input at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#Fixing NAMB. Thanks Widefox; talk 11:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wasn't me. 'Twas Tbhotch. Int21h (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

oops, sorry off by one error. Widefox; talk 11:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have made a reply, and I'm not happy that you seem to be coming over to Wikidata with a POV to push rather than to contribute to the core purpose of this project. In particular, calling the entire Wikidata community, a community built from various projects besides the English Wikipedia, "ignorant", seemingly based on a human error made here, looks really bad.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With respect to my arguments, your happiness is secondary to the success of the projects. I believe my account was activated on Wikidata at the same time as yours, so its not as if I'm "coming over" any later than you, although you may be more active than I. (Hint: I have no IPBE on Wikidata, so I cannot edit it.) Pushing a POV is exactly what a request for comments are meant for. It is irrelevant which project the Wikidata community is from, just as it is irrelevant which national community the English Wikipedia editors come from, or which community Americans come from. They're going to have to get used to European-American cultural dominance, and all that entails. Look bad? What is this, high school? Are you trying to tell me I won't get invited to the cool kids' parties if I keep this up? I am not here to look good, I am here to do good work. The rest of my response is on the RfC, but thanks for the heads up, I would likely have not have gotten around to responding for at least a couple days, by which point (social psychology) group conflict dynamics would have dominated and people would be demanding I be taken to the Oak of Justice to answer for my crimes against humanity. (I realize the last part sounds sarcastic given the tone of my response, but I assure you, it is quite an ordeal for me to edit the other projects and my window of opportunity to do so will soon be gone.) Int21h (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you had just 7 edits as of the time of my post above, other admins I talked to even labelled you as an SPA, since you have no content contributions there whatsoever. Simply put, if you aren't actively engaging in the community, it's questioned whether you really have engaged in the community to a point where you can make effective comments. Wikidata is a serious project like any other, not a "high school party", and I strongly dislike that you're making a conclusion based on the aptly false assumption that every project works like the English Wikipedia. If you need IP block exemption there, you just have to ask.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not know what an SPA is. (I will look into it later.) Other admins you have talked to? Again, this feels like a high school argument. You and the people you "talk to" don't want to invite me to the cool kids' parties. I get it. It is irrelevant (classic appeal to authority). As for the "not actively engaging the community", that makes no sense, but OK. My comment was my engagement. But however you want to rationalize. Again, I have no edits is because 1) Wikidata is only 8 months old and 2) Wikidata does not have a vocabulary, nor an active discussion concerning a vocabulary, that can handle the data I would be interested in contributing (see my GeoSPARQL article, an article only a few months older than Wikidata) and 3) my IPs are blocked, I do not have an IPBE, and I am not sure the Wikidata administrator community is mature enough to handle IPBE requests responsibly. But again, however you want to rationalize. I have not discussed any other project besides the English Wikipedia and Wikidata, and especially not "every project". (It does matter however, in my opinion, whether the character of Wikidata is going to reflect the open, inclusive and forgiving culture of the English Wikipedia which has made it so successful, or something like the closed, elitist and strict culture of the French and German Wikipedias (which AFAIK relies much on machine translation of the English Wikipedia), which I have a concern is happening. But that is another debate. If you want to have it, I'm down though.) And one does not "just" ask for an IPBE, no more than one simply walks into Mordor. It is minimizing the procedural, evidential, and practical burdens of doing so.

Saying as y'all are going to pull the data from the Wikipedia article infoboxes I have edited, when I want to add data to Wikidata, I will edit the infobox and let y'all add it, or add the data or script to my Userpage and ask another editor. Not a biggie. I guess that until Wikidata gets a larger and more mature administrator pool that is better able to handle criticism instead of throwing temper tantrums, I will just have to wait it out. Until then, we still have the English Wikipedia to work around these issues. C'est la vie.

I encourage y'all to stop seeing the malintent in others, and to quit using it as an excuse to hurt them. If y'all seek to punish me for my comments, you should know that while this caused me mild discomfort for a day (I apparently caused more), you will still seek to gratify your desire to punish others for their perceived threats (to Wikidata in this case), and in the end the only thing that will be done is that you will have hurt people. And it will not relieve your discomfort or your fear.

You may have gotten the vibe, but your comments are unmoving. Your attempts at hurting me are weak. And while your notion that one must edit a project within the first 8 months of its creation (Wikidata) or be precluded from involvement in forming its permanent policies (Wikidata's CheckUser policy) is mildly (as in theoretically) reasonable, it is disingenuous. Int21h (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:SMUD logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

voice for opposition
Thank you for quality articles such as Freedom of speech by country, law, judiciary and cases in the US, for seeing "an existential threat to the Wikipedia community", for voicing opposition, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. Int21h (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A year ago, you were the 625th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Six years ago, you were recipient no. 625 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice job writing Law of Mexico. Your work on this subject is greatly appreciated! ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 16:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• If you're interested, you can submit the article to 'Did you Know'. It will be posted on the Main Page and get several thousand views–more than likely. However, you may want to use more than one source to expand the article. Best, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 16:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, thank you, but I just don't think I can get the article up to snuff in 5 days. The article is a priority of mine, so I hope to significantly expand it in the coming weeks, but good sources are just too hard to come by to get it done in 5 days. We shall see how much I can do by then... Int21h (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings! As a member of WikiProject Computing, You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the Article for deletion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HD media player. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! Thanks. 188.245.75.122 (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another move request is initiated. Feel free to join in. --George Ho (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Judiciary of Jersey, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Green Giant (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I noticed that you readded a couple of links here. I removed them because WP:ELPOINTS #4 asks us "to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website". Since the main website contains these links, why do we need them in the article? Green Giant (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only 1 of the links is so; I added a separate link to the court opinions because of their importance. The other, the link to the NYSCEFS, is not the same website. On a second look, they appear to be easily located from the main website, so I/we should probably revert. Thank you for the heads up. Int21h (talk) 05:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I see you've done a lot of edits to the "Government of New York" article, and I'd like your advice.

The article "New York Public Service Commission" has its own article, which appears in a search. But if you search for "New York State Public Service Commission", it redirects to the "Government of New York" article.

Also, the "New York State Public Service Commission" isn't listed on the "Government of New York" article as one of the Executive Departments (probably because it's an agency).

I think the fix is just to change the redirect to the "New York Public Service Commission" article, instead of to the "Government of New York" article.

Let me know if you can help or do the fix. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have made your suggested redirects.

Making a list of government departments/agencies for the main government article is not an exact science. Until we can get a reliable source giving a canonical hierarchy of them, we just "wing it". (For example, I only recently got a canonical list for Illinois government departments.) After that, we would push the rest into a list article with all or most departments/agencies that would clutter up the main article... Until then, feel free to add any missing departments/agencies/whatever to the article until everyone knows what's going on.

The website says "The Department is the staff arm of the Public Service Commission"... I will try and expand the article(s) and get to the bottom of it because of your interest.

Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Int21h (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Int21h! Yes, I'll translate that page! Best regards from Mexico City! Happy 2014! --Correogsk or Gustavo (Eritrocito or Heme aquí) 07:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excellent! Thank you. Int21h (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

someone added that "russia is corrupt becuase of putin" in the putin article intro, that is not so constructive, can you please help me? thanks Leiroi22 (talk) 08:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

am afraid he will edit war over it Leiroi22 (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, can you fix this table so that it disambiguates county names? It is currently generating links to the wrong Orange County Sheriff's Department. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yikes. I'll have to see what the common method is for overrides. I will look into it. Int21h (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! bd2412 T 17:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any progress? bd2412 T 16:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I've fixed it. Bazonka (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That did the trick. After I saved San Francisco Sheriff's Department with a null edit, the correct link showed up in the template. Thanks! bd2412 T

Hi, if you removed European Parliament from the template based on EP being part of European Union, you must remove also Pan-African Parliament, as its an integral part of the African Union. And the Latin American Parliament, while perhaps not being yet part of CELAC, is applying to be part of it since 2011, so it will probably had to be removed in a near future.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject Mass Surveillance Dear, Int21h. We would like to invite you to join WikiProject Mass surveillance, a group of Wikipedians devoted to improving articles related to the privacy and global surveillance. If you're interested, consider adding yourself to the list of participants and joining the discussion on the talkpage. -- HectorMoffet (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shortcut WP:SETEC

Hi there! I see you are the main (recently) active editor to the Federal Register article. I wanted to let you know that I am planning on working with staff from the Office of the Federal Register to improve/expand the article according to Wikipedia norms. I know this is a gray area, but we are planning on choosing to edit articles about the OFR's publications, (i.e., the Federal Register, the Code of Federal Regulations, and the Statutes at Large), but will treat the OFR and NARA pages themselves as off-limits due to COI. We're trying to be transparent and play by Wikipedia's rules. I also left a lengthier message on the article's talk page. I just wanted to give you a heads-up, and ask if you'd have any opinions on how best for them to contribute or if you'd even like to help out with the effort yourself. Thanks! Dominic·t 19:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dominic: Excellent, that would be great. Please consider:

• Organization. Organization is something I pay particular attention to. It will affect flow and readability. It will affect the structure of the introduction. I tend to work my way from the inside out; I try and focus on organization--where I want the article, and future editors, to go--then expand each section accordingly, and then only lastly creating an introduction that properly reflects the body (which is now, hopefully, well sourced.)
• Sources. You are in a good position to choose particularly exemplary sources given your proximity and professional relationship with the subject. Is the source or author widely known or referenced in any settings? Would a university student or professor use the source in the course of their studies? Does the source give more or better detailed information that may otherwise not be in the article? (E.g., some material may be very POV and best left to further reading from the sources, but is still informative.) Is the source dry and factual or is it illuminating and stimulating? I am particularly bad at giving like 5 alternative sources per sentences when I feel it necessary to give diverse viewpoints, or when each source only covers a sentence partially. (I'm sure many don't like it, but its so easy to remove sources, and even re-add them back later from the history, then it is to add them in the first place.)
• Be bold. You are making highly visible edits from a highly visible employment position. Please don't let that deter you from doing what needs to be done. It is super easy for us to delete your contributions; its much harder to actually make your contributions in the first place. If possible, make the article epic. Its an important article. You may or may not realize it, and I may be wrong, but your edits here are going to influence the world your grandchildren live in. In a big way.
• Similar articles. This article does not exist in a vacuum on Wikipedia. Readers should be able to easily compare and contrast with similar subjects, especially with ones they know more about. How are your edits going to influence them? E.g., California Regulatory Notice Register, Official Journal of the European Union, Official Journal of the Federation, Canada Gazette. If you do well, the decisions you make will have a large effect not only on this article, but others as well. Editors such as myself take hints and cues from similar articles; in other words, we will replicate this work across similar works from other states, foreign and domestic. (Maybe keep the organization generic at first?) Imagine how your organization will jive when it is replicated in these other articles. Imagine what will happen to your material if big reorganizations must take place. I also highly recommend editing similar articles for this very reason: the diversity of knowledge gained from, and resolutions to any conflicts that may arise with, other articles and editors will often be very informative.

But if you ignore all that, please just keep in mind the influence you have will carry far beyond us and far beyond the articles you edit. Int21h (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for straightening out the Georgia and Florida high level articles. I'm still trying to digest them all, but so far, they look good! Student7 (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:) Yeah I'm just getting started. Its pretty time-consuming to cleanup these articles, so I just removed the obvious stuff, stuff I think we talked about. I have chosen to focus on the most populous states first, so I haven't really started on those articles yet. In the Government of Georgia article, I think the legislative section unnecessarily goes into the history of apportionment, and in the Government of Florida aricle, I think the local government section unnecessarily goes into too much detail about history and politics. Local government in general is poorly developed in these types of articles. But I think the proper way to fix those problems are to fix the "main" articles and pull from their introductions, and that takes alot of time and energy (good sources can be so very hard to come by).. I also frequently have to take other detours, e.g., like the law articles, so I know where to pull primary sources from if I need them. Int21h (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No need to be cryptic. Just fix the article, if you see an error. WCCasey (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, now I read your post on the California Talk page. Edit wars, eh? I'll try to go back and see what's going on so I can help you work on that. WCCasey (talk) 05:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not much of a war. ;) Int21h (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Law for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I somehow missed your last comment/question, and the thread was closed in the meanwhile. I would say "New York State Offices" would be fine. Then make sublists like Political offices (Gov., Lt. Gov., Att. Gen., Comptr.) Judicial offices (Chief Judge, Assoc. Judge Court App., Supreme Court?), Executive dept (quite a few of them), Defunct offices (some of which have an own article). Could you do the merging? Kraxler (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am still taking a census of similar templates. I want to make sure that this won't be some outlier that will ultimately get reverted. I want to collect a list of all these templates, and bring in the other major editors what they think. Since I discussed the issue, I am not as concerned as I first was. In any event, I am still doing major editing on state government articles, which view as a much higher priority. Int21h (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's ok, no need to rush it. Please let me know when you have a merge-draft ready. Cheers. Kraxler (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: this comment: [6] Was it meant for me or for Collect? I'm really beside myself on what to do. I made numerous good-faith edits and C. reverted them all, apparently because he disagreed with one of them. I just want my work restored, minus the Nazi gun control material that is the subject of the RfC - which seems to be C's real issue (since he didn't feel it was necessary to revert the previous editor's series of edits that removed four times the material that I restored... if you follow). Lightbreather (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh - It looks like another editor agrees with me that the mass revert was overboard. Again, thanks for your comment. Lightbreather (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ha, you should see the discussion regarding the system that could store 60 million. The fact that we are "only" at 49k pages created for that (equal to 10% of all templates) shouldn't be a cause for worry. After this, I'll go to Template:RussiaAdmMunRef and its 1400 or so pages. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Official Compilation of Federal Legislation. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Sreeking (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was no mistake; I reverted your edits for the reasons given. Int21h (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No citations - This page does not cite any sources. It requires more sources to be added to the article to make it more reliable. By citing a single source, it is a self-published article. Therefore, it is not a reliable source in accordance with the guidelines set out in WP:VERIFIABILITY, especially WP:NOTRELIABLE. Thank you. Sreeking (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Shadowjams. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks but you're wrong. Shadowjams (talk) 06:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I see that you do a bit of editing on Judiciary articles. I have created a new navbar for state Judiciary articles ((Judiciaries of the United States)) to replace using ((United States topic)) directly. --Bamyers99 (talk) 00:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:) Thank you. Int21h (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So you made some changes to California superior courts. I revert the changes because they are basically OR. But when I do so, I'm looking at your user page which has the sockpuppet template on it. No matter, I revert because your changes are OR. But, I wonder, how is it that a "blocked" sock is able to edit? Well, it looks like you were blocked in the past, but are un-blocked and not a sock. Okay. With this in mind I recommend that you remove the "was blocked" template and let easily confused editors such as myself look at your userpage as a straight forward presentation of who you are. (Does this make sense?) In any event, I think my revert on California courts is a good one. Again, the citing to the rules is original research. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 07:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The information is not OR. Per WP:SUMMARY, the lede reflects the material of the article; the article has a section named "Appellate Divisions" covering this information. Nor is an almost direct quote from the California Government Code original research, nor is citing to primary sources original research, per WP:PRIMARY.

Nor does my user page have the sockpuppet template on it. I was blocked and this multi namespace message box reflects this fact. Potential confusion is not a good enough reason to overcome my desire to make Wikipedians aware of this event IMO.

Therefore I reject your revert and I oppose it, and I also reject your recommendation for edits to my user page. Int21h (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia's policies regarding BLP apply to ALL Wikipedia articles that mention living people, not just articles that happen to be biographies. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. Pls discuss on talk page before removing again.Dash77 (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There may, incidentally, be a better template to use for this purpose than 'BLP sources'. However this article clearly contains unsourced and potentially controversial material about living people, and hence is clearly subject to BLP guidelines, regardless of whether or not the article as a whole is a biography. This should be noted using an appropriate template. If the specific template used is not the best, this should be changed by replacing it with a better template, not by deleting it.Dash77 (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That may be that the article contains unsourced and potentially controversial material about living people, and be subject to BLP guidelines. But that template is inappropriate, regardless of whether or not it is so subject. Int21h (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I did not remove WP:BLP, I removed ((BLP Sources)). Your addition of the template is incorrect, which is for "articles about living persons". This article is not "about" living persons. Please discuss on the talk page before adding again. Int21h (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually I was requesting that you discuss this on the article talk page, not your personal user talk page. In any event, I have added the template again. I feel that the burden of evidence rests with you, not me, in this instance. The article makes specific claims about living persons and anything that we can do to protect them against possibly fallacious claims we should do. I have also requested arbitration of the apparent dispute at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard.Dash77 (talk) 10:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Illinois Department of Central Management Services, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pat Quinn. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that you moved Michael Powell (attorney) to Michael Powell (lawyer). First of all, you didn't state a reason for doing this in the edit summary. Also, and most importantly, you didn't fix any double redirects that you caused. This is very important because a redirect to a redirect doesn't work. Please go clean up your mess. --rogerd (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please go read the "nutshell" at the top of the article you referenced, Wikipedia:Double redirects: "Double redirects are easily fixed by bots and human editors should devote their efforts elsewhere." Int21h (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Chelsea Manning are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Talk:Chelsea Manning. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am in the process of starting a discussion on WP:ANI. It is clearly improper to remove proposals that you disagree with. WP:NOTFORUM is not a proper reason to remove proposals for changes to articles. I urge you to revert your edit now so we can forgo a discussion about your conduct. Int21h (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Attacking a transgender person's gender identification is hate speech. It equivalent to using the N-word to refer to a black person, and as such is prohibited by WP:BLP. Yworo (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To which N-word are you referring? Int21h (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

N-word, first entry. Yworo (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So when you refer to N-word, your refer to "nigger", correct? Your reference to nigger is misplaced, as it is a euphemism. "Male" and "female" are not euphemisms. Int21h (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please take this to WP:ANI as this appears to be one editor's disruptive behavior, I am not saying it it is and im not saying it is not but this needs to be addressed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Gender identity. Georgia guy (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That opinions, such as religion etc., offend someone is more reason to keep Wikipedia neutral. Hence my proposal to use "they". For Wikipedia to become POV to avoid offense to a particular viewpoint is against a core principle of the project. So with that, I disagree with that essay. I also reiterate everything I said about consensus being an ongoing development and never permanent. Int21h (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But did you read it carefully?? That is, you didn't just scan through it quickly. Georgia guy (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did not read it carefully. I stopped at "Basic respect requires to accept [...]". Basic respect does not require people to agree with others, or to refrain from expressing their contradictory opinions. And to read that sentence any other way makes it nonsensical or irrelevant. Int21h (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have to read it carefully to understand; otherwise you will likely mis-interpret it. Georgia guy (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I do not. A quick scan of the essay leads me to believe the essay is premised on the aforementioned statement, and as such my time allocation protocol dictates I ignore it unless I'm bored out of my mind, or I otherwise seek to spend considerable effort to disentangle any gainful knowledge from such a premise. Int21h (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although I should note it is in my queue to read. Its just a very low priority. Int21h (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, might I ask what gender you are, Int21h? And, in advance, what do you think your reaction will be if I refuse to accept your answer and insist you are the opposite? Yworo (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Honestly id just ignore others here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may indeed ask what gender I am. I think my reaction to such statements would be to dismiss them as off-topic. Int21h (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Really? My experience is both men and women are at least slightly annoyed if they are casually misidentified. But repeatedly persisting in calling a man a woman in real life is likely to result in violence, don't you think? Yworo (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, annoyance would probably be why it would be dismissed instead of thoughtfully considered and analyzed. And yes, I can foresee many situations where disagreements lead to violence, but I assert that the threat of violence is not a proper reason for censorship. Int21h (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:BLP prohibits treating subjects disrespectfully on talk pages as well as in articles. And it allows removal of content that does. That's not censorship, that's simply requiring that editors be respectful when discussing living persons. And questioning a person's gender is disrepectful, whether they have changed it or not. Yworo (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am allowed to assert (and question) that Chelsea is a male on a talk page discussion/proposal. I have and I do. And there is obviously a disagreement about what "disrespectful" means. And removing information based on its content is always censorship. Int21h (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You haven't read Transphobia#Misgendering and exclusion, either, have you? In any case, WP:BLP is the one policy on Wikipedia which does indeed allow for censorship. In fact, it pretty much requires it in the case of personal attacks against living subjects. And insisting that someone's gender is the opposite of what they say it is is a personal attack, regardless of your own personal beliefs about gender. Yworo (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, WP:BLP does not prevent discussion, or discussions about discussions, on whether the subject of an article is male or female and whether or not Wikipedia should take a neutral tone on the subject. Regardless of our own personal beliefs about gender. Int21h (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You might also want to read through this arbitration case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Multiple people were topic-banned from editing anything related to transgender topics specifically for repeatedly and disrespectfully insisting that Manning is male and/or referring to her by her former name. Arbcom seems to agree that misgendering is indeed disrepectful to living persons, so the removal provision of WP:BLP would indeed apply and be supported by ArbCom. I am considering refering your actions to Arbcom to be reviewed under this particular ruling. However, were you to volutarily remove or strike the disrepectful information, I'd see no reason to do that. Yworo (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will indeed read that case material in due course. I will not remove or strike any of my comments to which you refer, and I oppose any one else doing the same. I also think ArbCom discussion would be proper if what you say is true. Int21h (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's the most relevant part, an almost exact parallel to both your heading and insistance that Manning is male:

During the course of the dispute, Tarc (talk · contribs) intentionally engaged in inflammatory and offensive speech ("Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make a heifer become Marilyn Monroe", "Bradley Manning simply doesn't become a woman just because he says so") in a self-admitted attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.

ArbCom ruled 8 to 0 that such statements about a subject's gender are considered "inflammatory and offensive speech". Here's a direct link to that ruling: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute#Disruptive_participation_by_Tarc. Yworo (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The comments are not the same already... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do it if you dare. Int21h (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Otherwise, you should admit you were wrong and/or close the WP:ANI topic. Int21h (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not wrong. Refering for enforcement to ArbCom. You've just been warned below that you are subject to such enforcement. Yworo (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The message below is not a warning it even says it isn't. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bring it on. Int21h (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 'It's obvious some here are trying to get your goat (don't get me in trouble for using an animal ref here). The whole Manning dispute was a proxy war between sex and gender. I find it distasteful that a few feel they can dictate how others must use one usage over another. I'm afraid the advocates are going to hound (animal again!) you on this until you genuflect in submission. My advice? Just say "fuck em" and go about your business.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:) It causes me little worry. One of my favorite quotes is from Aesop's Fables: "Ὁ λόγος δηλοῖ ὅτι οἷα ἡ πρόθεσίς ἐστιν ἀδικεῖν, παρ᾿ αὐτοῖς οὐδὲ δικαία ἀπολογία ἰσχύει." It roughly transliterates as "The narrative shows that for those who intend to harm, fair replies have no power." A more popular translation is "Any excuse will serve a tyrant." This from the era of the Solonian Constitution: "At the time of Solon the Athenian State was almost falling to pieces in consequence of dissensions between the parties into which the population was divided." Its amazing how consistent some human social behaviors are. Lather, rinse, repeat. Int21h (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have requested that ArbCom review your personal attacks against a living person, namely Chelsea Manning which you made on Talk:Chelsea Manning. That enforcement request can be found here. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, thank you. Int21h (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should also include this edit and this edit. Per this edit, this edit, and this edit. Int21h (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At ANI you wrote, "I have re-submitted my original comment/proposal to make sure it is clear I am aware of the ArbCom final decision in the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology case and that my original comment/proposal should be bound by it." However, in closely comparing your original comment versus your supposedly "resubmitted" comment, I can find no difference aside from the additional timestamp. This is very confusing. Did you mean to revise your original comment? If not, I don't understand the point of "resubmitting" it. JohnValeron (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't want the request to be closed on such an assertion, only to have there be another ArbCom request after I say the exact same thing. Int21h (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Home-Made Barnstar
		For working on the article Law of Washington, among many others, which no one else could possibly have been interested in writing. DocumentError (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate the recognition, because those articles really were very exhausting, and I really appreciate your work moving the topics forward. Int21h (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For resolving a merge issue. You expanded Law of Louisiana while by chance I expanded Louisiana Code of Evidence. Both are now stand-alone articles. Otr500 (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:) Int21h (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed you moved New York Surrogate's Court for the second time. You may have forgotten you moved it previously, but please use WP:Requested moves for controversial moves. "Surrogate's Court" is a formal proper name for probate courts in New York State, as used by the court itself and every source with which I'm familiar. Dabdo (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will notify you when I do. There is quite a bit of research to organize, about the courts of surrogates and previous discussions concerning capitalization of common nouns vis-a-vis courts and court types, so it may take a while. I may make it a larger discussion topic that includes multiple court types and multiple articles; there's a larger issue that needs to be resolved here, and too few editors involved. Int21h (talk) 08:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have answered to Dabdo's argument at his talk page. Kraxler (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Int21h, I will try to take part in that discussion if possible. For what it's worth, in New York the following are names of courts and are normally capitalized in my experience: Court of Appeals, Supreme Court, Court of Claims, Surrogate's Court, Family Court, County Court, Criminal Court (NYC only), Civil Court (NYC only), District Court (Long Island only, unless referring to federal of course), City Court (outside NYC only). Examples of generic names normally not properly capitalized in New York: appeals court, probate court, juvenile court, matrimonial court, divorce court, traffic court, justice court, city court (NYC only), civil court (outside NYC), criminal court (outside NYC), small claims court, housing court, drug court, federal court. Dabdo (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have noticed that practice. I have not sufficiently discovered why; where I am from (California), this is probably because the court is called the "Superior Court for the County of [X]" or something similar (as a proper noun in the form prescribed law, which is also in the form of lower case), which mostly gets reduced to "Superior Court" in common parlance, even though it is a "superior court" per both the California Constitution and law. In other words it is the shortened form of a proper noun, which would be capitalized, but that proper noun and capitalization is only with respect to a specific, per-county court, whereas the article is about all those courts, making it a plural, common noun. While I assume such is the case as well for New York, and as far as I can tell New York law treats such courts in the common noun sense (lower case), it is a perennial issue and should be dealt with properly when there is disagreement. In any case, since I do not see this as a pressing issue, until sufficient discussion is had, I urge you to revert yourself for the reasons given. Int21h (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The NY constitution is similar in that it treats all court names as lower case. That's about the only place that does, though, as far as I know. Encyclopedias, newspapers, web sites of the court system all capitalize the name. Wikipedia generally goes by what reliable sources use. Also, it may be semantics, but it is a statewide court, not a series of many county courts, even if organized by county. Dabdo (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The unexplained and inexplicable grammar choices of reliable sources should certainly be taken into consideration. Int21h (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In light of recent information, I concur with your reverts of my changes. I apologize for not bringing this up for discussion per WP:RM/CM. Int21h (talk) 05:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No apology necessary; I realize your edits were made in good faith. Thanks for your message on my talk page. Dabdo (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template_talk:Succession_box#RfC has a discussion on succession box usage. You had previously noted or opined at Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder/Archive_18#RfC_on_successor.2Fpredecessor_where_a_district_is_not_reasonably_viewed_as_the_same_after_redistricting thanks. Collect (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You previously voted, opined, commented, or otherwise took part, at Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 18#RfC on successor/predecessor where a district is not reasonably viewed as the same after redistricting. Please see a related discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox. Kraxler (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just wondering why you deleted the reference to Mis. Reports in the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division page. Sneekypat (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Misc. Reports only have selected opinions of the trial courts and Appellate Term, and are no more relevant to the Appellate Division than any other organization within the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division opinions are published in the Appellate Division Reports, a publication specifically for that court. I was only trying to clean it up by removing superfluous information. Since it obviously caught your eye, I have reverted. Int21h (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the U.S. Supreme Court we are talking about, being quoted on a point about the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, as opposed to political science in general. As you should be well aware, the court said in Marbury that we must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding. It is clear from a close reading of the text of the City of Arlington opinion that the majority was directly refuting and rejecting the concept of delegated legislation. In the quoted footnote, Scalia was obviously responding to this line in Roberts' dissent: "An agency's interpretive authority, entitling the agency to judicial deference, acquires its legitimacy from a delegation of lawmaking power from Congress to the Executive." --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Coolcaesar: No, it's not the US Supreme Court we are talking about. We are talking about the concept of delegated legislation, and by extension, the concept of legislation. Don't get lost in US case law when speaking to general legal concepts in a global context. In that global context, Scalia's opinion is no more authoritative than the dissent you mention, which should also be quoted in the article (and thus I will). Further more, none of their opinions are really any more valuable or authoritative than that of any run-of-the-mill jurist. Because, again, it's about a legal concept defined in a global context in which US courts simply have no special authority. Int21h (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But if you analyze law that way, you are analyzing nonexistent legal concepts that will probably never exist in our lifetime (and by the way, I do read books on comparative law for fun). As you must be aware, WP policy is that we follow, we do not lead. The only laws that can truly be analyzed that way are self-executing international treaties. Delegated legislation, like most legal concepts, only makes sense as bound to particular legal systems (in C++/C#/Java terms, a programmer would say it has to be instantiated as an object and isn't defined as a static class). It exists in some legal systems (with weak separation of powers) and not in others (with strong separation of powers), just as the civil law notary and the general security interest exist in some legal systems and not others. That was the entire reason for why I quoted Justice Scalia, to introduce his implied holding that "delegated legislation" does not exist in the United States (where the term "legislation" is interpreted very narrowly as the legislative power as reserved to the legislature by the Constitution). --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Coolcaesar: Wikipedia discovers, it does not follow for that would violate NPOV. But no, the Supremes don't define these concepts, jurists do, and the legal system composed of these jurists.

But I think it:Atto normativo describes it best. Compared to Legislation, which is severely underdeveloped on the subject. Int21h (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just remembered to respond to this. Your position still doesn't make sense. From the common law perspective, the civil law's overreliance on extrajudicial jurist commentators is unprincipled, unethical, and frankly, lawless. The common law emphasizes a clear hierarchy of authority at which judges stand at the apex and always have the last word in the absence of further constitutional, statutory, or regulatory response (as the late Antonin Scalia himself understood and emphasized in arguing for increased judicial restraint). In the common law world, commentators are important secondary sources of authority, but they are always secondary to the law itself as interpreted by the judiciary. --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would you care to comment on Talk:Politics_of_Rhode_Island#Requested_move_21_May_2015? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I specifically referred to Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. All of what I wrote is verifiable by consulting that section.John Paul Parks (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@John Paul Parks: Then it will be easy to provide references on point. That references exist somewhere else is not the standard, they're required in the article making the claim. "All of what I wrote is verifiable [if you look in every possible book ever written]" doesn't cut it, more specificity is needed. The onus is on the editor making the claim. Int21h (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Bankruptcy Code is a specific statute, and Section 362 Is a specific section within that statute. It is hardly the equivalent of "every possible book ever written."John Paul Parks (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In terms of interpreting title 11 of the United States Code, the analogy is purposeful. While I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying using that section as a citation runs afoul of basic WP:PRIMARY requirements that interpretation of primary sources is WP:OR. That claim cannot be backed by 11 USC 362 by quoting from it directly without using any interpretation. Even if there were such a quote that could be culled from the USC, the statutory text is almost always subject to precedential interpretation--often because there is another section that speaks to the situation, because a single section of the USC is not exclusionary on the subject. I mean, it's good to cite primary sources, but this is a good example when tertiary sources are essentially required, and by the time you're done you realize that article should not really be going into the finer points of bankruptcy law. Int21h (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[7] Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see the talk page on "Law of Sweden". Arrivisto (talk) 10:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Arrivisto: It appears there is consensus, but a source must be identified. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 05:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Int21h: I have added three citations that, though not ideal, some give credence to the "special Nordic version" theory. Arrivisto (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Texas in the American Civil War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Viva voce. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—California Agricultural Labor Relations Board —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Güe(rill)a (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Int21h. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((YGM)) template.

Mike V • Talk 23:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I have not yet heard back from you in regards to my email. I trust it's safe to assume that you no longer have need of IPBE? If not, please be sure to get back to me at your earliest convenience. Thanks! Mike V • Talk 23:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mike V: As for my IPBE, you should direct your questions to my original request and those who granted it, who are privy to non-public information, as you are. That being said, what causes you to have such trust in your assumptions? int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issuing administrator is no longer active and did not provide any information to the functionary team when the request occurred. Mike V • Talk 01:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mike V: Your statement is erroneous in that the English Wikipedia shows TParis as active, and in addition you should direct your questions to my original non-public request, which was not to TParis; I suggest that if you do not have access to this information, then you should defer your questions to someone who is competent on the subject. Your reply was non-responsive, so I repeat myself: what causes you to have such trust in your assumptions? int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TParis's last edit was approximately 6 months ago. I think it's fair to consider that as inactive. Your user right log shows that TParis was the issuing administrator. (02:03, 27 December 2011 TParis changed group membership for Int21h from autopatrolled to autopatrolled and IP block exempt (User request via unblock-en-l)) Forgive me, but it seems strange that TParis would issue the right if he wasn't the one with whom you discussed. Regardless, I would appreciate if you either inform me directly (privately via email, if you wish) or point me in the direction of the individual(s) with whom you discussed. As for your question, I have found that the vast majority of users with the IPBE right no longer have need for it because the original reason for which it was requested no longer applies. This is especially true for those who were issued IPBE more than a year ago. Given that you didn't respond to my email or the message on your talk page, I assumed it was likely that you fell into the same category. Even so, I invited you to discuss it with me if that was not the case. Mike V • Talk 02:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My request was not sent to TParis. I assume you agree, since you have not disputed this. (Furthermore, TParis' activity level is irrelevant, given this undisputed fact.) Since a competent admin should have access to my original request, you are apparently not an admin competent re this issue, and I cannot continue this conversation without divulging such non-public information. (I would suggest you start by contacting unblock-en-l recipients, per the logs you gave, or by contacting the OTRS team.) If you would like to proceed, please demonstrate that you have obtained access to such basic information required for this discussion to continue; I will otherwise consider any and all further comments by you as non-responsive. Furthermore, I do hereby repeat, reiterate and reclaim all claims, excluding any requests, included in my original request(s). int21h (talk · contribs · email) 03:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

I’m following up to let you know that I was able to review the request that was submitted. (For verification, the original email was sent to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org on Sun, 25 Dec 2011 5:37:10 UTC. If you feel that is not sufficient, I can provide other forms of verification such as the 5th letter of the email address used, the valediction at the end of the message, or the first sentence of the email.) After reading the email, it appears that you do not meet the requirements for editing through tor with IBPE. Using tor requires that you have exceptional need for the right, such as having a credible concern for your physical well being or actively editing from a country that restricts access to Wikipedia. As neither scenarios apply to your situation, I have removed the IPBE right. I understand that this may not be the desired outcome for you. However, I wish to convey that this is in no way a negative reflection of you or your efforts. I look forward to to seeing your continued contributions to the encyclopedia. Best regards, Mike V • Talk 01:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Fp-url.png. 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. --B-bot (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see here: Talk:Washington_Initiative_502#Rename_to_Cannabis_in_Washington_.28state.29_or_split_off.2C_or_what.3F

Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Int21h. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Int21h. Greetings from the Photography workshop. A reply has been made to your request. You may view the reply here.
If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: ((resolved|1=~~~~))

AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 14:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC).Reply[reply]

You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((GL Photography reply)) template.

I have removed some of the content you added to the above article, as it appears to have been copied from http://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/importance_agriculture_ny.pdf, a copyright web page. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Diannaa: If you would like the conversation here, so be it, it should have been on the article talk page. Sentence fragments of "ranks" and "contains" and "top" are not copyrightable. The other sentence fragments used are basic facts, such as region names, and numbers from the Ag Census. Should there be interspersed, non-fact sentence fragments that you think violate copyright, you may remove them or challenge them, but the facts must stay. I note I have used basic facts and connected them using my own connecting words, which is to say that if there be any non-fact words used, there shouldnt be many. I'd be happy to work with you to identify them, but these facts simply cannot be changed without severely impacting the factual basis and reliability of the claims. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 00:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia has a very strict copyright policy, stricter in some ways than copyright law itself, because or fair use policy does not allow us to copy material from copyright sources when there's a freely licensed alternative available. In this case the freely licensed material is prose that we write ourselves. You must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. The material that I removed was 337 words copied practically verbatim from a copyright web page elsewhere on the Internet. That's a copyright violation. I have undone the revision deletion on one diff so that you can view it yourself in the copyvio detection tool: here — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I obviously disagree. Since you have purged the material from the logs using an admin right, you have blocked all possible community review of your action, so the next step is to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2017 February 4 for a neutral admin to review. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have undone the revision deletion on one diff so that you can view it yourself in the copyvio detection tool: here. Please take the time to review the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, very cool diff, I did not know about that. I notice how there is never an actual sentence between the two, my text being quite literally sentence fragments of basic facts, ranking of regions and counties, top commodities, top sales, etc., with huge amounts of non-factual text in between purposely not used. Thank you for the diff, that should be enough for a community discussion, focusing on each sentence, which will be the next step after we get a second opinion. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have placed a link to this discussion at WP:CP — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I should say I will still be asking for a sentence-by-sentence review, so I hope that is done this time around to prevent such a proposal in the future. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[UNDER CONSTRUCTION.. to be continued]

"ONCE IS ENOUGH" I shall begin by asserting my claim: we have an amalgamation of facts and pronouns interspersed with uncreative verbiage. Each non-creative fact is uncopyrightable, and furthermore, an amalgamation of such non-creative facts are also uncopyrightable, per Feist v. Rural. These facts and pronouns ultimately source from the Census of Agriculture, a work exempted from copyright protection. The uncreative verbiage connecting them does not bestow upon these uncopyrightable facts any threshold of originality. If I can prove that Diannaa reverted one sentence in error, then all sentences by the same logic were reverted in error, thus Diannaa's entire revert must be undone.

"THE STANDARD" Feist v. Rural explicitly rejected the doctrine of the "sweat of the brow", the doctrine that an author gains copyrights through simple diligence during the creation of a work, establishing that mere labor ("sweat of the brow") is not sufficient for copyright. Feist established that facts are not copyrightable unless the threshold of originality is met. Further case law such as Morrissey v. Procter & Gamble reiterated that only sufficiently original elements within the work are eligible for protection.

"THE ONE RING" Diannaa asserts that because these claims from the federal Ag Census can be found as sentence fragments of the work, interspersed with uncreative and insignificant verbiage of both my own and from the work, this causes a copyright violation. To analyze each claim added, I will treat each as generally of the subject-verb-object form. E.g., one sentence that Diannaa reverted and purged from the logs is "New York is a top-ten national producer of apples, grapes, onions, sweet corn, tomatoes, and maple syrup." Diannaa asserts that using "New York is a top-ten" and "apples, grapes, onions, sweet corn, tomatoes" sentence fragments from the work violates copyright.

Where Diannaa's assertion fails is that both the facts "New York", "is a top ten" and "apples, grapes, onions, sweet corn, tomatoes", which Diannaa asserts as themselves copyright violations combined into one with connecting verbs which Diannaa does not assert is even from the work, are actually not copyrightable in and of themselves. They are simple facts. They lack the minimum creativity required for copyright. It is clear that the intervening verb connecting words between the extremely basic facts of "New York", "top-ten", and "apples,..." lack creativity and do not add any creativity. There are articles which are thought to so lack creativity they are usually never capitalized even in titles, like "a", "the", "and" "in".

All sentence fragments are actually stated clearly in, and taken directly from, the federal Census of Agriculture. There is no creativity there, nor is there any copyright in that work.These facts are pulled directly from the 2012 Census, which also gives rankings, but at the nationwide, state, county and regional level, which is the bulk of the twice-reverted material. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Int21h! I'm here to give my opinion on the Agriculture in New York copyright problem. For transparency, I should declare that (1) that I'm not an admin but a humble copyright clerk and (2) that I owe a huge debt of gratitude to Diannaa, and that we often collaborate in copyvio removal though we don't very often talk. None of that makes the slightest difference to my evaluation of the copyright infringement in this version of Agriculture in New York. That was, in my opinion, unacceptably close to the source, and Diannaa was absolutely right to remove/revert it. A couple of examples:

That is, quite simply, copyright violation. There is no conceivable reason why this content should not be rewritten in your own words ("The North Country region has the second-highest sales of agricultural products after the Finger Lakes region, and is the third-largest in the state in terms of area under cultivation …" or "After the Finger lakes region, the next-highest volume of agricultural sales is in the North Country region, which also has the third-largest area of farmland in the state…"). This is not a simple list of non-creative facts such as the names and numbers in a telephone directory. Content you write in Wikipedia may contain the same facts as your sources, but may not use the same forms of expression. You must write in your own words.

That's my opinion on your contributions to this specific article. The big question, of course, is this: are there other articles where you have adhered to the source in a similarly close way? If so, those too may need to be reviewed. You could help by listing any such pages here, on this page, in this thread. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concur. That's a clear copyright violation. Attempting to claim it's not doesn't look good. --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two sentences down. 20+ to go. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very nice, I will try and integrate it into my finished argument. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 02:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Our article, revision 763582436	The source
The North Country region ranks second in the state for total agricultural sales and third in farm acreage, and along with the Finger Lakes region is one of the top producers of milk and dairy products as well as cattle and calves, and is the top producer for hay and grass silage.	The North Country region […] ranks second in the State for total agricultural sales and third in farm acreage. Along with the Finger Lakes region, the North Country is one of the top producers of milk and dairy products as well as cattle and calves, and is the top producer for hay and grass silage for feed.

"In our own words"	The source
The Finger Lakes region is a significant producer of milk and dairy products and cattle and calves. The North Country region is second among the regions for total sales value, and ranks first for grass and hay silage.	The North Country region […] ranks second […] total […] and third in farm acreage. [along] with the Finger Lakes region […] producers of milk and dairy products [and] cattle and calves, and […] for hay and grass silage […] [rank] [first/third/...] [rank] rank Finger Lakes […] significant producer […] sales value […]

"In your own words" changes nothing. There are simply too many irreplaceable phrases, irreplaceable in that changes them would change the meaning so much that it would make the sentence incorrect. All "in your own words" does is add more […]. Whatever phrase you use, anywhere, all that does is add another […] to another place in the source where that phrase is used. There is the same overlap with the source. And there's only so many ways to say "hay" (which is not hay silage) and only so many ways to say "Finger Lakes". int21h (talk · contribs · email) 02:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 04:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The current version of the article is okay from a copyright point of view. You now have three opinions that the original version is a copyright violation, so I have re-done the revision deletion.

Obviously adding the words "Finger Lakes" is not a copyright violation, nor is adding the word "hay". Adding list material such as a list of farm products is okay, as long as the surrounding prose is not also copied. So, if the source says "The North Country region […] ranks second in the State for total agricultural sales and third in farm acreage. Along with the Finger Lakes region, the North Country is one of the top producers of milk and dairy products as well as cattle and calves, and is the top producer for hay and grass silage for feed" you might say "The North Country and Finger Lakes regions produce cattle, dairy products, and feed for cattle". General advice: Content has to be written in your own words and not inclusive of the source material at all. It's been suggested that not so much as three words should be together in the same order as the source. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again concur with User:Diannaa's cogent analysis. Also, you could have easily avoided this fiasco by simply pulling facts from three or four sources and mixing them up. It's rare that quotes from different sources will naturally mesh together, so restating those facts to flow properly as a coherent narrative is one way to make oneself avoid inadvertent copyright violations. There are plenty of recent sources on Google Books on the subject of agriculture in the state of New York, if you had bothered to look for them. The trick is to limit the search to sources with "Preview available" and published only in the "21st century." --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diannaa, every county in the nation produces those things. Every county in New York produces every commodity. Think about your reformulation strategy, what information you left out: how important it is to what you are saying, and its provenance. General advice: stick to reverting other editors, leave the actual writing of Wikipedia to everyone else.

Coolcaesar, You have failed to ask much less answer: just how did I come across this source? Googling phrases from the Ag Census, which was my jumping off point and led me directly there (it's a top hit when googling the Ag Census discussions); this source is just a condensed collection of the Ag Census discussions and tables.

If I cannot use the Ag Census, those sections will be dead in the water. There is no way to build on this section without using these basic bits of information, there is no way to discuss these counties or state-defined regions further without linking that information to something tangible like ag products and money. There would be little to no nexus to that information and agriculture. You can only paraphrase a statistic using so many words, and the source has used them all (and shows a sea of bold and […] in every diff).

This is no fiasco, it is a process. I will build my argument then take it to the community, and if they reject it, I will leave those sections as they lay and move on. Someone will say something meaningless and merge the section, and no one will ever learn much about regional conditions in New York concerning agricultural crops and economics. Such is Wikipedia. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 04:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diannaa, just realized you probably wont figure it out, so here's a hint. Ag Census data is of the form normal for SDMX statistical "observations": an observation representing a single statistic as whole, with dimensions, attributes and measures (attributes are like units, like dollars or acres, allowing for generic non-SDMX dimensions to still be exchangeable and comparable, but are implied here for simplicity). These Ag Census observations in this dataset are of the form, given with the values for this observation:

a SDMX dimension [area]: The North Country region;

Note: an "SDMX parameter-ized slice"--implied aggregate of Ag Census data, hence Ag Census shouldnt be cited--source should be cited

a SDMX dimension [timeperiod] (implied): 2012;

a generic dimension [dimension1]: for total agricultural sales;

a generic dimension [dimension2]: ranks in the state; and

a generic/unitless [measure]: 2nd.

Note: an "SDMX parameter-ized slice"--implied aggregate of Ag Census data, hence Ag Census shouldnt be cited--source should be cited

Hence [area] [dimension2] [measure] [dimension1] "The North Country region ranks in the state second for total agricultural sales"

Compared to so-called-copyrighted source "The North Country region […] ranks second in the State for total agricultural sales"

Notice how I've cut out everything except the bare observation? Those […] you have in there? Of course you don't, who are we kidding.

Then you have the same beginning but a different [measure] and [dimension1] "and third in farm acreage". English such as it is--SDMX also allows it--Ag Census observations use it. I know this is likely too much for you, but I assure you, its preety standard. You changed it to [area] [dimension1_from_observation_alpha] [dimension1_from_observation_beta] [dimension1_from_observation_gamma], the same dimension but from 3 different observations, and left out any [measure]. The measure is kinda the point of a statistical observation.... You have taken an Ag Census slice--a set of observations with shared dimensions--and turned them into gibberish. Stick to reverting other editors, leave the actual writing of Wikipedia to everyone else.

int21h (talk · contribs · email) 07:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 07:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you say, "There is no way to build on this section without using these basic bits of information," you're taking the view that if you can't rely on that source's exact expression of those particular facts then there's absolutely no way the subject can be properly covered in Wikipedia. That's a lazy excuse for plagiarism. My elementary school teachers and junior high English teachers trained me to avoid excuses like that by the time I was 13 years old. As an adult, I have never needed to invoke that excuse in any context.

As I said before, the way to avoid a copyright violation is to mix it up. If you can't find any decent sources on the open Web that go into New York agriculture in detail (most likely because New York ag is a joke compared to California ag), then get to a decent library and start looking at books (you do know how to find those on WorldCat, right?) or at deep Web databases like ProQuest and LexisNexis. I have personally done that kind of research many times for Wikipedia on topics I care about.

As any competent writer knows, there is always a way to put a different twist on after every fact to turn the narrative in a different direction that does not parrot the exact expression found in the original source for that fact. In this case, the obvious way to do that is to locate facts that support the why and the who, then mix them in with facts about the what. For example, if the Finger Lakes region is so productive (the what), then there must be some article or book somewhere commenting on the reasons for that (the why) and the persons responsible for discovering that (the who). Mix those in, with appropriate citations, and also state the what in a different order (i.e., hay ahead of dairy), and use different adjectives, and no one will accuse you of violating anyone's copyright. For example (I have no idea if any of this is true or not), you could say that "due to its relatively long growing season (for the Northeast), unusual geology, and rich soils, as discovered early on by 17th century English colonists, the Finger Lakes region is ranked number one in the state for hay and grass silage," then add on, "In turn, the affordability of high-quality feed has contributed to a regional dairy industry ranked among the most productive in the state.")

If you can't take the time to research the subject properly so that you have enough sources to not have to closely track the language of a single source, then just don't do it. There are a lot of subjects where I've been frustrated for many years with the poor quality of the Wikipedia articles about them. But because I knew it would take too long to pull the sources necessary to rewrite them to a minimally decent level of quality and I don't care enough about those subjects to invest that time, money, and energy, I learned to let it go. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There can be no plagiarism, the source was clearly given, and the underlying provenance (Ag Census) was implied. Again, you fail to understand exactness is required: they are statistics. Staying true to a statistic may be lazy, but its the only truthful way. You cannot "mix it up" with statistics, it must always have the required dimensions and measures, although some may be implied (as in the time reference)--otherwise it is a fraud, a falsehood. You of all people should know, words can have an exact meaning, some words can be irreplaceable. Rigor. And your appeal to authority is disingenuous.

Again, you fail to understand how nexus matters, how any advanced topic should be connected to more basic topics which novice readers usually start with. You don't write an article on quantum physics without an article on classic physics, you don't write a section discussing a county's silo construction projects without discussing why silos matter to the county. Your junior high teachers obviously stressed the wrong things, they forgot to tell you why you're going to the library. You can put as many twists as you want on a statistical observation--all it will add is more […] in this diff.

There is no why here, there is no who. There is only what. What with what. The Ag Census is not an essay. It is not an argument. They are dry connections between whats. You can say all you want before and after, but you will always have "Finger Lakes region is ranked number one in the state for hay and grass silage." int21h (talk · contribs · email) 00:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is interesting to see you throw around words like "rigor" without comprehension of what they mean. Reminds me of my favorite line from The Princess Bride: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." In this case, you forgot what you're writing in the first place. To paraphrase John Marshall: We must never forget that it is an encyclopedia that we are expounding. No more than that. No less than that. Not an Ag Census. Not a statistical compilation.

If this was about an article consisting of nothing more than a bare-bones table summarizing Ag Census rankings for New York counties, I would agree with you. There are only so many ways to arrange statistical observations as raw numbers, lists, or tables. But it's not. You're writing a prose article on agriculture in New York, and prose is always a form of creative expression, even if the subject is a dry or obscure one. For your sake, I hope you have not copied-and-pasted with such reckless disregard into other Wikipedia articles. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bare-bones statistics, without any creative prose, has formed the core of Wikipedia since the beginning. Go look at the majority of US city articles, at their demographics sections. Notice anything … similar? Notice what these article sections have in common with the issue at hand? That material, as with this material, is not creative; there is no room for creativity. It is dry, it is predictable, it is highly structured, it is devoid of prose. All your fallacious and irrelevant soliloquies notwithstanding, this is how Wikipedia is written. For my sake, watch and learn. Rigor -- strict precision: exactness. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 05:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]