User talk:SamuraiBoywithaDrugProblem

You have been vandalizing Wikipedia. You should know that your actions are futile and only put you at risk. Most vandalism to Wikipedia is fixed within 5 minutes, and there is no way for you to cause any permanent damage. Please stop or your account will be recorded on the vandalism in progress page, if it is not already there. Website defacement is a crime in many countries, and you can rest assured that if you do not stop vandalizing pages after being warned, you will likely be blocked. Trying to evade this block to continue vandalizing will only prompt somebody to report you to your ISP. Consider this message your only warning.

If you decide to change your behavior and contribute positively and constructively to Wikipedia, your contributions will be greatly appreciated, regardless of your past behavior. -Casito&#8669;Talk 18:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I ran across this message on my talk page, warning me that "Website defacement is a crime in many countries. . ." Well I really doubt that this could be the case in a 'wiki' format after all. How can you define "defacement" in a 'wiki' format where the general public is invited and encouraged to make changes? The anti-defacement law, if it exists, would apply more to vandalising the Pentagon's homepage, etc. . . things to which the general public does not have access to change. Next, there are jurisdictional problems to address. In which court will the 'wiki-violator' be haled and how? Is this a Federal or State violation? Are the law enforcement officers of one state going to effectuate the apprehension of a wiki-vandal charged under this law in another state? If its a Federal crime, then Federal officers must make the arrest. Next is the problem of proving intent (mens rea). Also, the language of "defacement" might be overbroad or vague and present Constitutional First Amendment issues. Just a few thoughts, no biggie.SamuraiBoywithaDrugProblem 21:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Please don't play word games. Wikipedia is not a democracy. If your behavior will be considered disruptive, your "few thoughts" will not prevent you from being banned. This is a work in progress, not a chat room, and nor an exercise in First Amendment. mikka (t) 23:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I would have liked to respond earlier, but you arbitrarily "blocked" me from doing so. You're confusing the issue -- I was treating the issue of criminal liability only. You rebutted with an argument based on wikipedia private policy. But what can be expected from a known Communist eh? Concentrate young grasshopper...clear your mind...SamuraiBoywithaDrugProblem 23:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You were not threated with criminal prosecution; it was given as an example. You were threated with being blocked for trolling, i.e., disrupting the work. Please also read the policy avoid personal attacks. mikka (t) 00:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)