User talk:Pusalieth

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Pusalieth, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: NintendoLand[edit]

Hi Pusalieth. There's two reasons why your information was removed.

Sources - WP:YOUTUBE is typically not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. It's too easy to fake stuff, because it relies on user generated info that anyone could supply. With a little work, just about anyone can upload a video of themselves with a crackpot theory of how they thought of a game idea first. It would be different if there was a source that couldn't be faked, for instance, an article from IGN or Eurogamer to confirm things. But then there's issue #2:
Coincidence - Is it really that big of a deal? It's not the most original idea in the world - slamming together a bunch of Nintendo characters in a mini-game collection. I don't think it's that uncommon for people to predict this sort of stuff. I'm sure as soon as Mario Kart came out, some guy out there though Hey, what if they put Sonic in a Kart racer?, or when Smash Bros came out, I'm sure there were plenty of people who thought What if Sony did the same thing?. I don't think it takes much to come up with these types of things before they are actually made... Sergecross73 msg me 14:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's incredibly improbable that "Nintendo used their idea." Video games take years to develop, so a video that appeared in 2011 could not have had influence on a game that was released only a year later. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 07:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo says it themselves that Nintendo Land started development the same time the Wii U started development. This makes your case completely false. Also, the time a game's announced does mean equal the time the game started development. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pusalieth. As Thomas is touching on above, there's a number of additional reasons that have been discussed on my talk page, on why we shouldn't put your theory on the NintendoLand article. Just notifying you of that. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 20:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright[edit]

Please don't copy material directly from other websites and paste it into Wikipedia, even if you provide a reference. Doing so violates the copyright of the source.—Kww(talk) 03:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm Widr. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Kww that didn't seem very civil, so I removed it. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it’s one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Widr (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrights[edit]

Note that your latest revision doesn't directly copy the text from http://www.animemusicvideos.org/guides/avtech/video2.htm as your earlier edit did. If you directly copy text from another site again, you will be blocked, and if you take off on a tirade against any editor like you did on me again, you will be blocked. You did violate copryight, and my removal of the copyrighted text was mandated by policy.—Kww(talk) 20:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013[edit]

Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 20:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Pusalieth has been started.—Kww(talk) 20:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Pusalieth. You have new messages at GSK's talk page.
Message added 20:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

GSK ● ✉ ✓ 20:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you truly feel that your contributions weren't a copyright violation and that I have been abusive, WP:ANI#Pusalieth is the place to make your views known.—Kww(talk) 21:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting[edit]

You may possibly be interested in a message I have posted at Talk:Pitch Perfect, in response to a post of yours. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for personal attacks and copyright violations. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:17, 12 February 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).

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

Request reason:

Was not able to mount a defense, blocker took no consideration into opposite side of story, unjustified Pusalieth (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

When you start a comment on a user's talkpage with "Hey asshole", this is exactly what you should expect to happen. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:47, 12 February 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

reasons for blocking as stated by wikipedia below as well as incivlity, I did not continue to be distruptive, nor was I ever distruptive to Wikipedia, just a person. Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor. The correct course of action for Kww when I commented would be delete the comment, and move on, instead he threated me on my talk page, in punishment and control me. I may have made a moral mistake by aggresivly confronting him, but he dubly so made an ethical mistake, of abusing power, and not just with me, over half of Kww article contributions are deletions [[1]]. This block is wholefully unjustified, and utterly rediculous, this is like a rich man taking your money and when you get pissed and retaliate, the police arrest you, completely ingnoring the fact a rich man just stole from you. Plus I didn't violate copyright as the material stated were facts, and facts cannot be copyrighted, just as if I say the sky is blue, that statement isn't copyrighted, nor can it be, nor with saying F=m*a, or CD holds 700MB of data, or anything else that a fact, only opinions and original works of "art" can be copyrighted. Which I clearly did not do. Incivility consists of one or more of the following behaviours, especially when done in an aggressive manner: personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments. These often alienate editors and disrupt the project through unproductive stressors and conflict. While a few minor incidents of incivility that no one complains about are not necessarily a concern, a continuing pattern of incivility is unacceptable. If incivility is repeated harassment or egregious personal attacks against one or more individuals, then it may result in blocks. Even a single act of severe incivility can result in blocks; for example, a single episode of extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person. In general, be understanding and non-retaliatory in dealing with incivility. If others are uncivil, do not respond in kind. Consider ignoring isolated examples of incivility, and simply moving forward with the content issue. If necessary, point out gently that you think the comment might be considered uncivil, and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue. Bear in mind that the editor may not have considered it uncivil; Wikipedia is edited by people from many different backgrounds, and standards vary. Only take things to dispute resolution (see below) if there is an ongoing problem you cannot resolve. This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors. To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, to repeatedly bring up past incivility after an individual has corrected their behavior, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated. Blocks should not be punitive Policy shortcut: WP:BLOCK#NOTPUNITIVE Blocks should not be used: in retaliation against users; to disparage other users; as punishment against users; or where there is no current conduct issue of concern. Blocks should be preventative Policy shortcuts: WP:BLOCK#PREVENTATIVE WP:BLOCK#DETERRENT Blocks should be used to: prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. --Pusalieth (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

First of all; the material you added was directly copied from a website (this one in fact). Secondly, you were extremely abusive to the editor that correctly removed the material. And most importantly, whilst one could believe that a single angry posting might be an aberration, you then went to the trouble to create Kww, a fake article about that editor which instantly puts your actions in the category of harassment. You stated why you were blocked above - "to prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; deter the continuation of present, disruptive behaviour". Frankly, and I'll be honest here, you should be thinking yourself lucky that the blocking admin only blocked for a week; I have seen numerous examples of such behaviour meaning immediate indefinite blocks. Black Kite (talk) 23:01, 12 February 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.

+

One of the key points here, and the reason that the block needs to remain in effect, is that Puslieth has never acknowledged that the original edit was a copyright violation. That's my real concern.—Kww(talk) 22:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that since he removed this comment, I've updated the block to remove talk page access. Anyone that wants to act on the above block should consider restoring talk page access.—Kww(talk) 22:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it having declined the unblock and mentioned the above in the unblock reason. I'll be quite happy to restore it if he continues to edit problematically. Black Kite (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)During this block you should read up on some of Wikipedia's policies, such as WP:COPYPASTE, and learn what is and what is not acceptable on Wikipedia as your actions indicate otherwise. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your all nothing but a bunch of facists, I should be lucky, fuck that, instead of hearing me out you just blocked me, you all would do well to have your freedoms and powers stripped of you and thrown in jail, you act behind your anonymity of the internet, cloaking your real intentions. If I want to remove a comment from "my" page, fuck off, its my page, who the hell made your fuckers rulers of the wikipedia, wikipedia?, no its decentralized, and nearly non-regulated. So how did these rules come to, from user submissions, which was then turned into admins, but instead of keeping the freedom wikipedia started with, you've managed to turn it into a massive "IT" crowd, full of nothing but admins, if what I did was so disruptive, wheres the disruption? The only disruption was caused from you facists retaliating, otherwise it would have been my just one comment, but it was removed by someone else, therefore nothing even caused a disruption, you came back to my page and threatened me with punishment which clearly is against the "rules" but since you make the rules you don't have to follow them, and you keep arguing about copyright, that's fucking bullshit, I didn't re-add it dipshits, or can you not read, you've punished me for something that never happened, only something I argued about, so you stifle it? You condemn me, without ever asking if I even know copyright laws, or have experience with them, or anything, to which I do, and I guarantee way more than all of you combined. Kww, you block me from my own page, you've got to shitting me, I guarantee you destructive power abuse will meet up with you in real life, as I have seen your true colors, as behind anonymity, everyone acts who they truly are, just merely adding something to my page is a mere conflict of intrust. And if anyone thinks they're cool and blocks me, bans me, whatever, I'll just delete this profile, I will speak my mind, I will be heard, I do not forget.

(talk page stalker)From an uninvolved editor. First off, please chill out. Being blocked is not the end of the world, and the fact that it ends in one week means you are being given a second chance. If you keep behaving this way, it's just going to escalate. No one is looking to silence you. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right, like driving a car: you'll keep getting warnings and tickets for bad behavior until your license is lifted. If you continue to break policy and tell people to "fuck off" your editing privileges will be revoked. Like real life, it is the way it works. Second, you were told exactly why you were blocked: you violated copyright and harassed the editor who removed the offending material. Did you read WP:COPYPASTE like I had suggested? It clearly states that copying text verbatim from other sources into Wikipedia articles is not allowed. It does not distinguish between works of fiction or non-fiction, therefore it holds for all available written content. Even if you don't agree that the edit was a copyright violation, you should not have reacted so hostilely. If you feel people aren't listening to your side, don't call them "fascists." It is the same as calling someone a Nazi: it is childish and it will only make people cease to take you seriously. During this block, please reflect on your previous actions and read up on existing Wikipedia policies by the time your block expires. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats and threats of personal physical violence. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the nature of your threats above, I have removed access to this talkpage.

You have been blocked from editing your talkpage due to abuse of the unblock process. You may still contest any current block by using the unblock ticket request system, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

(✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]