User talk:Int21h

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Int21h (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Fuck you! We all know this so-called "review" is a lie.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=[[User talk:Int21h#Goodbye Wikimedia and Fuck You!|Fuck you!]] We all know this so-called "review" is a lie. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=[[User talk:Int21h#Goodbye Wikimedia and Fuck You!|Fuck you!]] We all know this so-called "review" is a lie. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=[[User talk:Int21h#Goodbye Wikimedia and Fuck You!|Fuck you!]] We all know this so-called "review" is a lie. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Goodbye Wikimedia and Fuck You!

Eh. Going straight from creating the Government of Los Angeles County article and editing Judiciary of Russia to being banned to a single appeal has been frustrating, let me tell you. I have been looking back on all those edits, and I am happy. I am happy others have allowed them to stand so often, and I am happy others have actually chosen to expand my work, in some cases taking the articles to greatness.

But I also think, what if I hadn't? What if I hadn't made those article, would they ever have gotten created? How many decades would it have taken? That is what I fear about the future of Wikipedia, is that those core institutions in life will now get less attention without me.

And I can't help but think, was this User:DeltaQuad's idea all along? That I be prevented from making those articles in the first place, or whatever article I made he didn't like? Because he was amazingly successful. Imagine if User:DeltaQuad had done this 6 years ago. All those articles on my User page wouldn't be that way. Look at what they were before I edited them, go ahead. I can't help thinking this is what User:DeltaQuad was after, to have the articles as they were before.

And Wikimedia and its management just let him, like a bunch of little fucking bitches. From the lonely administrator all the way to Jimbo. Without so much as a community discussion. The community discussion starts & ends with a solid "Fuck you!".

But he doesn't want a discussion on the topic. He already knows who's naughty and who's nice--your opinion simply doesn't matter, so you simply don't get to see any evidence for what he considers against some unnamed policy. What a fucking douchebag. User:DeltaQuad, I gave you the benefit of a doubt, but at this point your silence can mean only one thing: malice. And your way of going about being malicious in such an underhanded way makes you a douchebag, fit for nothing but cleaning duties.

I think it is obvious from this affair that the bureaucracy is taking power the way many do, by silencing opposition in arbitrary manners. It was bound to happen. Everyone always assumes that miscreants and fuck ups can't ever be in positions of power, and so when they do, procedures and institutions are simply not able to cope. Jumping straight from this douchebag to the last court of appeal, with only 1 letter allowed. (If you don't know what the evidence is, tough shit, because douchebag asshole already told us what the deal is and your banned. Now get out.)

For all you good, decent editors out there: REVERT all my edits, DELETE all my pages. It is by my request, but in any event if my conduct is enough to ban me then it is enough to revert me. Wikipedia and Wikisource should be able to see concrete evidence of the damage douchebags like User:DeltaQuad cause. Wikipedia and Wikisource should be able to see what they would look like if douchebags like User:DeltaQuad would have banned me earlier. The only thing you would be changing is the effective date of my ban, as if I was banned the second I joined Wikipedia. (Place my ban message at the top with a date of 6 years ago; would it make any less sense? NO.)

So with that: FUCK YOU WIKIMEDIA. Fuck you. You lied to me. You lied when you said I would be part of a community, and I would be treated with respect by Wikimedia management. Fuck you. The only excuse I have heard is that the person who banned me wasn't Wikimedia management, it was just some random dude. Some random dude, but not Wikimedia management, banned me without community discussion, and this was upheld by Wikimedia management, but Wikimedia wasn't involved. Fuck you Wikimedia. All of Wikimedia Foundation, since all of you are ultimately responsible for what just happened: FUCK YOU. And that includes you, User:Jimbo Wales. You are still management, with management responsibilities. SO fuck you too, Jimmy Wales. Because, hey, if Wikimedia can accidentally ban me for life, then I can accidentally tell you to go fuck yourself. So go fuck yourself.

Put that in your fucking Wikipedia:Testimonials, and take my thousands of edits and created pages and shove them up your ass.

Int21h (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 07:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Sacramento Metropolitan Cable Television Commission

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

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

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

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

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Esteban Carpio arraignment.jpg

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]

Federalism in Iraq

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]

Image copyright problem with Image:Iraq 2005 kidnap footage.jpg

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:

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

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

Business Method Patents

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]

Thanks

WikiThanks

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]

File:Esteban Carpio arraignment.jpg listed for deletion

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]

Executive Office of President Seal

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]

RE: Sacramento County Sheriff's Department move

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

War Powers Resolution

(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]

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum

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]

DYK for Coleman v. Schwarzenegger

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.

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

Politics of Iraq

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]

National Broadband Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continuing archived discussions

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]

Merge to Palestinian territories

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

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

Final court of appeal in Jamaica

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

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

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

edit summaries

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

Iraqi parliamentary election, 2010

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

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

Proposal to delete Federal taxation in the United States

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]

Hey

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]

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.

Speedy deletion nomination of Honduran Council of Private Enterprise

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

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]

January 2011

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

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

Speedy deletion nomination of Al-Haramain v. Obama

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. My76 Strat 00:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response to the article talkpage. I stand corrected on my original assessment. The CSD tag has been removed and I apologize for my initial error. Happy editing. My76 Strat 00:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Government and Executive of Kosovo

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

Autopatrolled

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

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

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

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

RM alert

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]

RFC on the inclusion of a table comparing SI units and Binary prefixes

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]

Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act

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

RM alert

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]

Bob Black

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]

Thanks . . .

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

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

Gun-free school zones act

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

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

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

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

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

The Official Secrets Act 1989

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

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

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

Thank you for your message.

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

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

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

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

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

Extent of the Official Secrets Act 1989

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your message.

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

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

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

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

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

Lay judges in Sweden

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

Kosovo and control

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for your perspective on SOPA

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]

Nomination for deletion of Template:CalStats

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]

Barnstar

		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.

Talkback

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

A beer for you!

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

Category:National law enforcement agencies of Ecuador

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]

Merge suggestion for templates

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

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Iraq Talabani w al-Nujeifi 11nov10 lowres.jpg

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]

English defamation law

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

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

MBS -- if you have a moment

The mortgage-backed securities article contains this text:

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

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

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

Orphaned non-free image File:Le-duc-tho.jpg

⚠

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]

Disambiguation link notification for October 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States and the International Criminal Court, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page International crime (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Drunk driving in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Forfeiture (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian National Authority

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]

State of Palestine#Demographics

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]

Thank you

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

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Network neutrality in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wired (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Counties in California

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block

Hello Int21h,

You have been blocked based on CheckUser evidence that you are clearly abusing multiple accounts. If you believe this is a mistake, you may email me. At this time, until my investigation is complete, i'm not going to release the account names in which are matching with you as this is a big investigation and is not complete, but several CheckUsers have already looked into this offwiki and have verified the results. If you wish not to email me, you can appeal right to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee by emailing arbcom-appeals-enlists.wikimedia.org. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Just wow. That pretty much skipped over the "informal" section in the meta:Dispute resolution article. Given that it seems Jimbo is one of the handful of people that can override you--and he doesn't care--community discussion is pretty much moot at this point. The execution is over, now let the kangaroo court begin. (Or do I just skip straight to the appeal?)

I await the end of "your investigation" so I can see these "verified results" so that I may have your decision reversed. I hope to see them before "indefinitely". After that, I will work tirelessly to have your privileges revoked, if for nothing else besides using your super-administrator user block that is so erroneous, so egregious, and so outrageous, that it shakes my very belief in the Wikimedia Foundation and its management. Int21h (talk) 11:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And to other Wikipedians that read this, I am unable to edit other talk pages, or any of my User pages besides this. As I am unable to contribute, there is really no reason for me to be a part of any Wikimedia Foundation project. If you are still reading this, please vandalize my user page, for posterity, because I cannot. (Is it vandalism if you have the permission of the user?) Int21h (talk) 12:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is astonishing - for someone with your history and your length and depth of service. I'm sure it's some kind of mistake. I hope it gets worked out soon. --MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whats so amazing is that this is not a community action--this is a action by Wikimedia management. It goes to the very top echelons of the Wikimedia Foundation. There are only 40 other people with this authority that can overrule this, apart from Jimbo himself and the Wikimedia Privacy Ombudsman. This is in the court of 40 people now. I have never been so outraged by anyone on any Wikimedia project more than I am at the Wikimedia Foundation and its management at the moment. The CheckUsers are apparently functioning like secret police, banning editors while conducting "large investigations" (not after they are complete) under the pretense of secret evidence. This after I just got done with my major edits for the Judiciary of Russia.

I'm speechless, really. I just really don't know what to make of this, because I really cannot accept this was some accident. They can see my IP addresses I connect to Wikipedia with. They know they are separate from both my IRL identity and my Wikimedia identity. The IP addresses I use are numerous, but when I give Int21h as the username with the correct password, they can be rest assured there will be no more problems with that PHP session. They know this, and they always have, because my user have never been a problem. So why then this all of a sudden? I can only think malice or incompetence. This is so drastic, so arbitrary, so sudden, and so directed, as I really cannot see how it could be anything else. I abused multiple accounts? Does anyone even know what that means?

And the real question is, if I am right, how far does this rabbit hole go? It can't possibly go far: there's only 40 people. That is shocking. Int21h (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And make no mistake: as of 16:46, 27 December 2012, User:Int21h is banned from Wikipedia forever. And they know who I am, personally, so effectively I am as well. Someone change the User page. Int21h (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your block is based on checkuser evidence that indicates you have been using your IP Block Exemption to create and abuse at least several dozen, possibly several hundred, accounts. Please be aware that Checkuser shows more than just what IP address you are using; it also reveals certain information about your computer and web browser that all websites are able to access. The information available shows that you were not just sharing an IP address with these accounts, but also the same computer. If you can provide some explanation as to why you would be associated with these accounts, checkusers can continue to look into this, but the information presently at hand was substantial enough to indicate a need to block and revoke permissions immediately. This is NOT an WP:OFFICE block, so I'm not sure where your comment about "the top echelons of the Wikimedia Foundation" comes from. This is a checkuser block, and all checkusers are volunteers. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy someone asked! (I thought you'd never ask.) To the first statement, which I think most important:

"why you would be associated with these accounts"

I give the following simple answer:

incompetence

An incompetent person would associate them. As I have no idea what you are fucking talking about this is what I am going on. But please, provide useful information or quit editing this talk page discussion further; ask all questions and make all comments that irrelevant to this discussion in a new section. To put it bluntly. I assume by your trite statements:

"reveals [unspecified] information about [YOUR] computer and web browser"
"was substantial enough to indicate a need to block and revoke permissions immediately"

Only because I have written a web browser (in Java mind you nothing fancy) and hand written socket code in C to pull netfilter data structures out of the kernel (it'was a journey), can I say you, and your CheckUser (or is it CheckUser data? I'm not sure..) are full of shit.

The only thing your logs know vis-a-vis identity for any given HTTP conversation is the underlying IP and whatever else is said by the 2 parties to the conversation, which can obviously match each other. I think your admission:

"that Checkuser shows more than just what IP address"

is admission that something more than an IP address is required. But you will not admit it explicitly. I find this, at a minimum, troubling, if not damning, for a person with a position that requires significant technical knowledge such as yourself. (But I digress...) Here is where I really start making the assumptions, given my experience and the complete lack of information on any administrator's part, specifically you and him.

I assume the only data you actually have is, my programs (web browsers you call them? LOL) being the client in the HTTP conversation:

IP packet
- the IP address
  - Tor LOL
  - my other proxies
- MAC address (if IPv6 w/o privacy extensions)
  - example: ifconfig wlan0 hw ether 4c:22:d0:b8:78:ae
- TLS session data
  - keying material
- HTTP request data
  - PHP session data
    - User:Int21h
  - HTTP Headers, including
    - "User agent"
      - example: "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:10.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/10.0"
      - example': "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux armv7l; en-GB; rv:1.9.2b6pre) Gecko/20100318 Firefox/3.5 Maemo Browser 1.7.4.7 RX-51 N900" (some sites treat mobiles with more standards-based data, like MP4 instead of SWF)
    - "Referer"
      - example: "https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=porn&btnG=&gbv=1&sei=CMPfUKz3B4fA0QXtooDgDQ"
    - any other data the client chooses (I am the client) to send

Am I wrong? If not let us proceed:

Because I, the client, have chosen to send--GASP wait for it--data that is the same as everyone else or at least very common, or none at all. I can, and I do, spoof them as part of my standard setup. (To fool the incompetent into thinking I'm like everyone else.)

As for the IP logs, I really cannot say, as I have no idea what you are fucking talking about.

Without any actual information, like logs, I cannot tell if your (or the CheckUser data, I'm still not sure who has banned me) lack of ability to discern correlation from identity (in what I gather is an extremely large dataset of logs) is accidental (in that case you and him are both incompetent) or on purpose (malice).

You have chosen a rather intelligent path for an incompetent person, whoever you are out there that has banned me: simply don't provide evidence, and I simply can't refute it. Bravo. I give you that much, it is smart. I guess all of us have our calling. But everyone else involved with this outrageous conduct just get my scorn. Everyone else, involved in this in whatever form to any significant degree, must acknowledge your error, and step down from your post. That is the only way I see this from happening again to someone without my rather expert ability to recognize bull shit (aka n00b smack) when I see it; these people won't stand a chance when you mention big words like:

"information available shows that you were .. sharing an IP address ... but also the same computer"

and say:

"you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about"

As for you, please go to EFF Panopticlick, take some local college courses on computers, the Internet, and word processing, then come back. EFF Panopticlick says for my web browser:

"Within our dataset of several million visitors, only one in 685 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours."

Only 1 in 685. Out of millions. I'd say I have enough information to dispel any good faith assumption of good faith here. Int21h (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 05:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 06:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And also to you User:Hersfold, you know, that is the problem, This IS an WP:OFFICE block, as you say! And it shouldn't be! That is in part what makes this so outrageous! Since when can a volunteer not be part of management? I'm sorry, but your assumption that CheckUsers, which apparently can ban people "willy nilly" without so much as a shred of proof or possibility of independent review, are not management because they are volunteers is disingenuous.

Given it appears the Central Party Committee personally has a hand in choosing them, this would be like having a right of extraordinary appeal from Guantanamo Bay Military Commissions to the President. You, sir, appear to be an idiot, or at the very minimum making stupid comments on a serious matter. Please, do everyone a favor, me included, and take no more part in this investigation, resign your administrative positions, and continue the 5 or so constructive edits you have made so far to Wikipedia.

And I think this is quite evident by my demeanor with you, User:Hersfold, but I will also move to have your privileges revoked (unless you resign of course), as your comments, both on my User talk page and in your private emails to me in response to my pleas to the Party Central Subcommittee to help facilitate discussion, are outrageously stupid. Your participation makes it appear as though someone who is not incompetent is participating in this affair besides me, and that does this matter a disservice. Go be a bureaucrat and generally useless somewhere else. (P.S. generally speaking, repeating what someone else already said, and what is quite obvious, is considered nonconstructive. Your opinions on validity of secret hearsay is also nonconstructive, as no one but you can have any additional knowledge of what is secret to only you.) Int21h (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

Note: everything you see here is everything I have been told, which is to say nothing, and with this additional email provides a pretty complete record. There is additionally an email from User:Hersfold telling me to change my email registration to another email, which I discount as incompetent and off-subject. Int21h (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ArbCom list members,

This is an appeal against a ban against User:Int21h enetered on 27
December 2012 16:46 by User:DeltaQuad. I have not appealed to this board
against this action before. I request to reserve the right to continue
this appeal to this board once this board actually tells me the procedure
for such an appeal; my appeal may be different once I have been given a
trial, been told all procedures for appeal, or been given evidence which
to refute, if these events ever happen.

No community discussion has taken place with User:DeltaQuad; only 1 post
was made by User:DeltaQuad on my talk page, stating he had secret evidence
I was abusing multiple accounts confirmed my multiple CheckUsers. After
initially pleading with this board by email on 28 December 2012 02:47, as
the only entity with supervisory functions over this type of matter, to
contact User:DeltaQuad to start community discussion, I was emailed by
User:Hersfold on 28 December 2012 03:35 where he sugested I transfer
control of my WIkipedia account to another email account, which I
rejected. (As I cannot retain physical control of any other email account
like I can my current one; in case someone hacks my password, I am not
completely fucked. User:Hersfold, your advise is stupid, please don't
advise anyone else of the same, or they may risk loosing their accounts
forever.)

While User:DeltaQuad has stated this was for abusing multiple accounts, he
did not say when such activity occured, or what identifiable activity
actually met this definition. So I cannot refute it. While he stated that
he banned my User based on evidence, this evidence is apparently secret
and has not been provided. So I cannot refute it. IN SUM: No one has told
me any usefully identifiable information which to refute. So, whilst I
cannot actually refute any evidence but must somehow still "appeal" the
decision, procedural decisions should be made about how the appeal should
be conducted.

I don't think there should ever be a trial, only 1 appeal. CHECK! No
problems there, that's what happening here and now! I don't think there
should be any illusion of a fair trial here--there's isn't one. Let's get
that on the record: no trial ever took place, only an appeal.

I think this should be handled like a Star Chamber court case, where a
friend or acquiantance of the accusor, which I shall assume is
User:DeltaQuad, decides the case. I think it should be someone with
supervisory functions over the accusor, as well. In this case, that's you,
ArbCom. CHECK! That way there can be no illusion of impartiality in this
matter.

I think the burden of proof should be on the defendant, to prove the
accusors evidence is false, but the defendent should NOT actually be given
any evidence. That way, there is so illusion of a fair trial--er, fair
appeal. CHECK. No problems there, that's already happening. There's no
need to have any pesky Western notions of fairness here. Just accuse him,
refuse to provide evidence, demand he refute the evidence, and that's a
wrap! Time for lunch!

User:Hersfold has also admitted to being involved and having seen the
secret evidence along with User:DeltaQuad, so he can provide additional,
secret information if the ArbCom board wishes. Because User:Hersfold is
already of the opinion that "... you were ... sharing ... with these
accounts ... the same computer ..." he should be the only party to decide
the appeal, other than the actual accusor. We don't want any hint of
fairness here.

I think any appeal should be decided by the appellate authority in
discussion with the prosecutor alone, without involvement of the
defendant, with the secret evidence. CHECK! (Talk to User:Hersfold, he
apparently has already begun.) Let's keep this quiet, no one needs to see
what a modern Star Chamber looks like anyways.

Hell, just don't even acknowledge what the appeal procedures are. That
way, when the defendant finds out what the appeal procedures are, his
appeal is denied and he is banned forever! CHECK! I am pretty sure that's
what going to happen here. Call it a hunch, based on the incompetence and
outrageous behavior I have seen thus far.

Now that I have established appeal procedures I will be assuming... If
this board by chance uses some other procedures, please tell me before
denying my appeal for incorrect procedure. (Because then you would be
assholes.)

IN SUM Here is my appeal: I cannot disprove a NULL set of facts. That is
literally impossible. *I*, personally, have been linked by secret evidence
to "abuse", so my User has been banned forever even though my User has not
been accused of anything bad. That is outrageous, and this board should be
ashamed this was even allowed to happen, regardless of the outcome of this
appeal. Anything else I could possibly say is just conjecture. That is my
appeal; that is all my appeal can be.

I can promise the board this: If my User is allowed to continue editing,
as this User has for the better part of a decade, there will be no
additional problems for Wikimedia or its projects (as has been for the
better part of a decade). And the first thing I will do, of course, is to
have this board disbanded, and its incompetent members exposed and
prevented from obtaining such privledges again. (If you didn't get the
picture yet.) All assumptions of good faith have been dispelled, IMO. I am
being explicit for a reason. I hope your fear of loosing your unjust and
disruptive power overrides your desire for fairness and justice. The
decision for Wikipedia must be forced as soon as possible: either
incompetent management goes, or competent editors. If I must leave for
this board to be exposed, then so be it.

I will encourage all of my edits to be reverted, so that Wikipedia and
Wikisource know what damage incompetent management does; how threatening
ArbCom is. Let my User page stand as a warning to all who bother staying:
you are next. Your execution will be swift, and the appeal that comes
after almost as so (no trial though).

Respectfully,
User:Int21h

Reply to User:King of Hearts (fuck you too)

Hello User:King of Hearts,

At this time, you can go fuck yourself. Your useless information is ...
useless. I would rather not have people mistake this for community-based
discussion. The English Wikipedia Unblock team plain has nothing to do
with this affair; it is a Wikimedia-wide ban. I was told to use your
script as part of community-based discussion by the ArbCom board via
User:Hersfold, not as any sort appeal. THAT is the only reason I involved
you.

User:Int21h
Banned User

> This is a reply to your Wikipedia unblock appeal from King of Hearts, a
> Wikipedia administrator. DO NOT reply to this email - it is coming from an
> unattended email address. If you wish to send a response, which may be
> necessary to further your appeal, please click the link below.
> Send a response by clicking here
>
> Hello Int21h,
>
> At this time, the English Wikipedia Unblock team is declining your unblock
> request, and will not hear your case anymore. Your next and final step of
> the appeal process is to email the Ban Appeals Subcommittee of the
> Arbitration committee at arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org.
>
> King of Hearts
> English Wikipedia Administrator

Reply to User:Hersfold

Greeting User:Hersfold,

The block message on my talk page says:

"you can appeal right to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee by emailing
arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org"

But given that DeltaQuad appears to me to be incompetent to do his job,
and no such appeal ability is stated in WP:BASC policy without some sort
of "community-based methods of appeal", I do not believe such an appeal is
procedurally or practically possible. How can I appeal against evidence
that I do not know? How can I even appeal if I can't ever contact the
responsible administrator as per the "all community-based methods of
appeal have been exhausted" WP:BASC requirement? This may seem very
technical and pedantic, but procedure is an important part of policy, and
loopholes sometimes mean big problems, and in some cases, abuse by
administrators.

I have also started to try and use this "toolserver.org" script to contact
the responsible editor so that I may fix any misunderstandings or appeal
to this board. I have received mixed reports from that server as to
confirmation of my email, as well as some errors, so I am not sure if my
request was received correctly.

I urge this subcommittee to both cure the procedural defect in the WP:BASC
requirement in such cases as when the moving administrator does not
provide an avenue for discussion before or after a permanent ban so as to
provide the avility of the banned user to attempt discussion, and to sua
sponte forward my email and urge him to respond such that this defect can
be worked-around for this incident -- so I can then appeal to this board
with any actual evidence as he may provide for me to refute. (No evidence
has been provided -- he will not respond to emails I am attempting to
direct at him, as per his block message, at this board)

While I am not appealing to the BASC, I also encourage the BASC members to
act sua sponte and review my case and overturn the administrative user
block, and/or do what is neccesary to maintain the previous status quo
while any discussion or appeal is conducted. I also note none of
User:Int21h's edits are under review, or ever have been to my knowledge.

>  "community-based methods" to begin so I may appeal my active user block
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Hello Int21h,
>
> The community based methods mentioned on the BASC page would be those
> described in your block message, specifically the {{unblock}} template
> or the Unblock Ticket Request System at
> http://toolserver.org/~unblock/p/ .
>
> BASC is not a messenger service; if you do not wish for your primary
> email to be known to other users, you may consider creating a
> wikipedia-specific email address.
>
> ----
> User:Hersfold
> hersfoldwiki@gmail.com
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> From: int33@tormail.org
> Sent: 12/27/2012 22:00
> To: arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: [arbcom-appeals-en] User:Int21h request for commencement
> of "community-based methods" to begin so I may appeal my active user
> block
> User:Int21h
>
> Greetings BASC members,
>
> This is not an appeal. I ask the BASC to forward this message to
> wiki:en:User:DeltaQuad, as I refuse to ascede to the condition for using
> your Special:EmailUser script that I disclose my email address to this
> user. If the BASC or some other administrator wants to, that's out of my
> control -- but I won't give my willing permission and consent.
>
> I have never heard anything about the permanent user block until it was
> imposed, so I await initiation of any "all community-based methods" to
> begin, as I have been blocked and can no longer participate in
> Wikipedia-based "community-based methods"; if the BASC knows of any
> non-Wikipedia "community-based methods" that I should have taken in lieu
> of this request that I be able to communicate with wiki:en:User:DeltaQuad,
> I ask they inform me of such methods.
>
> Again, this is not an appeal. I cannot technically appeal to the BASC yet,
> because BASC has no authority over this matter yet, as the requirement for
> "all community-based methods" is obviously not met, as no such methods *at
> all* have begun, nor can begin without the intervention of the BASC --
> which can't intervene because "all community-based methods" have not been
> exausted. Nor can any such methods begin until the BASC forwards this
> email. (Catch-22? Failure of appeal protocol?)
>
> This is a request to forward the email to the administrator responsible
> for the permanent ban so such "community-based methods" may begin so that
> I may appeal to this board. Until such a time, I cannot edit Wikipedia,
> nor can I appeal to this board under current policy. If Wikimedia
> Foundation has disclosed my registered personal email to this
> administrator, without my consent and with my disapproval, then I will
> respond to any emails so directed at me from wiki:en:User:DeltaQuad to
> facilitate the beginning of such "community-based methods". Overwise, I
> prefer this email and the other requires me to use several proxies to
> facilitate IP communication for me to access my registered email account.
>
> If I didn't make it clear enough: please don't give wiki:en:User:DeltaQuad
> my email, as I really don't want his erroneous activities causing me grief
> IRL.
>
> --
> Int21h
>
> To wiki:en:User:DeltaQuad,
>
> I await your reply for the START of
>
> "... community-based methods of appeal ..."
>
> AFTER my permanent ban, in contradiction of community policy, so that I
> may appeal your plainly erroneous decision in haste.
>
> The only reason you give (this does not count your discussion until you
> reply to me) for my permament (well, until 2017 or something right?) user
> block on my talk page was that your decision was:
>
> "... you are [CLEARLY] abusing multiple accounts ..."
>
> "... based on CheckUser evidence ... several CheckUsers have already
> looked into this offwiki and have verified the results ..."
>
> "... until my investigation is complete ... a big investigation [which is]
> is not complete ..."
>
> "... not going to release [evidence] ..."
>
> I await any actual information or facts, or something that does not merely
> propose the unprovable existance/non-existance of hearsay which you base
> your evidence, or really any way to contact you at all. I assume this
> isn't the Star Chamber, with the only evidence being unknown hearsay. LOL.
> WOW.
>
> I also point you to [[Tor]] and my IP-block exemption as easy reading
> until such "community-based methods" as may be possible through email
> commence such that I may appeal your ban.
>
> Be warned, you have appear to have violated policy, and good manners. You
> should have contacted me first if there was a non-operational problem such
> that an immediate block was not needed. This should have been when your
> "big investigation" began. I view this as incompetence on your part, so
> aggregious that I shall initiate proceedures to have your authorization
> for such drastic abilities revoked. Good day to you.
>
> --
> Int21h
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ArbCom-appeals-en mailing list
> ArbCom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-appeals-en
>