User talk:Leopheard

Two things

Firstly, I do not understand why you reverted my change on Citizen's arrest? I have now further explained on the talk page that that power no longer has effect. Secondly, can I assume your redirect of Campus Police to Special police was a mistake, seeing as Campus police exists? Cheers! ninety:one (reply on my talk) 19:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Individuals with powers of arrest

See repeated request on Individuals with powers of arrest ninety:one (reply on my talk) 23:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Star Chamber Wallasey Merseyside.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Star Chamber Wallasey Merseyside.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Star Chamber Wallasey Merseyside.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Star Chamber Wallasey Merseyside.jpg. 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 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, I'm TheEpTic. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. TheEpTic (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Refusing to assist a police officer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Watchman. 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) 09:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Department M

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 Department M 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 a band or musician, 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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, then please contact the deleting administrator. Kiwi128 (talk) 04:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Power of a Constable

Hello @Leopheard: I noticed your new article, Power of a Constable, but I noticed that there weren't any references. If you could, could you add some in please, I would but I don't know that much about the subject. And also, just reading the article, I (personally) thought that it was confusing and lacked in context. But then again, that's just my opinion. If you could, could you just add a bit more information to it? Thanks! Seagull123 Φ 21:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Power of a Constable for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Power of a Constable is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power of a Constable until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 21:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Individuals with powers of a Constable, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Customs and Excise. 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) 10:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Leopheard. 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]

Speedy deletion nomination of Terracoin

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 Terracoin 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 a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "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 deleted 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, then please contact the deleting administrator. VViking_TalkEdits 14:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Leopheard. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of SHA-256 crypto currencies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uro (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 20:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Examples of Net Neutrality violations) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Examples of Net Neutrality violations, Leopheard!

Wikipedia editor Galobtter just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I've redirected it to Net neutrality in the United States#Violations where examples are already there. You can add the examples you have there instead. (the stuff you added is viewable here. If the section gets to large it can be split back out.

To reply, leave a comment on Galobtter's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Examples of Net Neutrality violations

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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Examples of Net Neutrality violations requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 "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 deleted 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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this deletion is contested, I will immediately nominate it for deletion at WP:AfD.

Leopheard added the exact same material to Net neutrality in the United States, and I deleted it.[1]

Net neutrality became a law on February 26, 2015, and was repealed on December 14, 2017.

You can't "violate" a law that hasn't been written yet.

The "Verizon blocks mobile-tethering apps" ref is from 2012. It also concerns the FCCs C Block rules, not Net Neutrality

The "Verizon blocks pro-life campaign messages" ref is from 2007, and involved cell phone text messages, not the Internet.

The "ISP Madison River blocking VOIP service Vonage" ref is from 2005, and involves a violation of the Communications Act of 1934, not net neutrality.

The "Comcast blocking P2P applications like BitTorrent" ref is from 2008, involved a violation of the Communications Act of 1934, not net neutrality, and was overturned on appeal. See Comcast Corp. v. FCC

The "AT&T blocking Apple's Facetime on mobile devices" ref is from 2012, and the FCC did not find a violation. See https://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/oiac/Mobile-Broadband-FaceTime.pdf

The ""Peering dispute' between Netflix and Comcast, TWC, AT&T and Verizon" ref is particular misleading. The actual ref says "You mean that Order where they have a lengthy discussion about CDNs and all this other crap and explain why issues involving CDNs and interconnection are NOT covered in the Network Neutrality Rule they adopted because network neutrality is not about "treating all bits equally" or some other dumb ass reductio ad absurdum? And wasn’t that reasoning totally affirmed by the D.C. Circuit in Verizon v. FCC as supported by the evidence and rational and all?" So in this case the ref (which, BTW is simply an editorial opinion) opines that the peering dispute was not a violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Your recent editing history at Net neutrality in the United States shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you are reverting anything violation related on the Net neutrality page, even when the FCC themselves have found this to be a violation. Maybe you're not actually reading the text, but either way, please stop it leopheard (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve List of scrypt crypto currencies

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Leopheard, thanks for creating List of scrypt crypto currencies!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add your sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and communication

Can you please respond to the above message? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Wikipedia is being more and more influenced by zealots who think they're right, one-sided discussions for deletion and pages marked and deleted all within 10 minutes by Wikinazis. I've added references to these pages but some zealot keeps deleting it. I used to care about putting out accurate information out there, but Wikipedia is going backwards.

I hadn't realised that. When I looked it up, the editor has explained clearly why these were removed. WP:V is at the very heart of this project. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Chrissymad. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)\[reply]

Calling people out for being overzealous and self-important isn't an attack, it's calling out the damage they're doing to Wikipedia leopheard (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's one thing to question why someone makes an edit (or series of edits). It's quite another to call someone a Nazi. Wikipedia is a collaborative project; if you cannot interact with others without calling them names we will be happy to show you the door. Primefac (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never called anyone a nazi, I called them a WIKINAZI. Totally different thing. And the collaborative side of Wikipedia is long gone. It's being vandalised by zealots with their own personal agendas. It's a shame because it was a really good resource post-2010 or so leopheard (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That’s some seriously weak wiki-lawyering there. Unless and until you can convince an administrator that edits like this aren’t something we should expect from you, blindly reverting someone because you have labeled them a “zealot” and are clearly stalking their edits (and in the process restoring outright vandalsim) you are going to remain blocked. I’d focus on rationally addressing the reasons for the block rather than making lame excuses like this if you want to continue to be able to edit your talk page at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point. I'm done with Wikipedia, I tried to improve articles but you just meet zealots at every turn. 100% block me if you want, I can just stalk the zealots from an unregistered account and keep changing my IP leopheard (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are contradicting yourself. You say you are done while at the same time saying you plan to engage in block evasion in order to harass other users. If you’re done, fine, be done. It happens all the time, but please don’t become a bad-faith troll, we’ve got quite enough of those already, and all it will get you is more blocks, so what’s the point? Beeblebrox (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Emirates of the United Arab Emirates, you may be blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 04:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re "100% block me if you want, I can just stalk the zealots from an unregistered account and keep changing my IP", posted above, if anyone notices such activity, please post the information here so that we can apply appropriate countermeasures. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of SelectaDNA

The article SelectaDNA has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

advertisement

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Online authorisation

The article Online authorisation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged in 2007 as uncited - people likely already know the general meaning - I guess maybe the details are already in another cited article?

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]