User talk:Capscap

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Capscap, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Capscap! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from other guests and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Hajatvrc (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Operation Pillar of Defense may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

A7 only applies to people, companies, individual animals, and events. It does not apply to creative works of any sort, except some instances of music where the musician does not have an article here. Please see WP:CSD for the full rules. I changes the deletion method for the graphic novel to PROD -- see WP:Deletion policy. DGG ( talk ) 14:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PRISM

Great start on PRISM...I'll ruefully delete it from my sandbox now :) Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks~ I keep getting pulled away from my computer so I didn't get as much information as I wanted to into it. Feel free to add whatever you've gathered! Capscap (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NSA responsibility

hi... by what measure is the NSA not responsible for the recent wiretapping programs? The FISA court gives them authority, and the data mining center in Utah is entirely owned by the NSA and domestic information is processed there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottertown (talk • contribs) 16:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ottertown. Here's a quote from the Guardian article that first (along with the WaPo) reported the program: "The law allows for the targeting of any customers of participating firms who live outside the US, or those Americans whose communications include people outside the US." I believe that is defined as foreign communications. Domestic communications would be communications between two US persons located in the US. The FBI arguably is responsible for that (example). Capscap (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Dad!

Neither are mistaken. It was clearly after the 2000 election. And Barker didn't say that the idea had been formed in 2003. He simply stated that MacFarlane had called him up by phone in mid-2003 and asked him to participate in an idea that he had come up with for a show. MacFarlane stated he formed the idea after the 2000 election. It wasn't after the 2004 election because the show started in early February 2005. You can't come up with an idea for a show and make all the negotiation processes in under 3 months. It was 2000. AmericanDad86 (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I know right. That "right after" straight up confused me at first too. Nobody really hated Bush at that point. But then it actually did make sense because in a lot of interviews with these creators, the interviewer will say things like "How do you feel now that the rest of America is starting to jump on your bandwagon and not be much of a Bush fan." So yea, MacFarlane and Weitzman were early opposers of Bush dating back to his first election win. So agreed, that was confusing. Also, if you can find that article on the Pilot being created in October 2013, please send it to me. :D AmericanDad86 (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, excellent find. I'm going to try to incorporate that bit of info into the article. :D Thank you! Hey, do you mind if I add you to my User:AmericanDad86 user page and list you as a recommended user of having good communication skills?! In short, it's something very neeeeerdy I do but I think needed. lol! Also, wow @ you graduating Harvard and earning your jurisprudence degrees and now attending Yale. Congratulations! Enormous feats. :) AmericanDad86 (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. And oh, you're telling me. Thanks for the kind words. AmericanDad86 (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete counter measures against NSA spying!

thanks. Kulturdenkmal (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at PRISM (surveillance program). During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. _→AzaToth 17:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

User:AzaToth, I think you accidentally blocked the wrong person. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. If it was intentional (though it doesn't seem that it was), see Wikipedia:BP#Preliminary:_Education_and_warnings, WP:EXPLAINBLOCK, WP:BLOCK#NOTPUNITIVE, and WP:BLOCK#PREVENTATIVE

Decline reason:

I checked with the blocking admin, and the block was intentional and based on more than three reverts in a 24-hour window. As for your complaint about not being warned, etc., first, you are already familiar with WP:3RR based on having been reported at least one other time in November 2012 (you removed this from your talk page). Second, you participated in the ANEW discussion you refer to. In fact, you reverted the last time during your participation. No express warning is required by policy and, given the circumstances, was certainly unnecessary here. Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Requested move of Deadmaus

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Deadmaus#Requested_move_3_.28to_.22Joel_Zimmerman.22.29. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "deadmaus, deadmau5". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 03:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boundless Informant slides

Capscap,

There are some slides about Boundless Informant: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-informant-data-mining-slides - Do you know if they've been uploaded yet? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2013 (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) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]