Jump to content

User talk:Pussypimples

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Pussypimples! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

December 2014

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Pussypimples", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because Disruptive and offensive. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC) I don't believe my name is disruptive or offensive, but if you want you can change my name to swollenpimples.Pussypimples (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock-un|GingerBreadHarlot}} - already created. PhilKnight (talk) 08:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Could you please provide a clear, authoritative source for the claim that the works by William Luther Pierce are no longer copyrighted? They're certainly too recent for us to assume they're not. The copies at the Internet Archive appear to have been uploaded by a third party, and I have already written to them to ask them to remove the copies (though I have yet to hear back). wctaiwan (talk) 22:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Hunter by William Pierce (deceased) is no longer in copyright and it's public domain. You can see clearly at https://archive.org/details/TheHunterByAndrewMacdonaldWilliamLutherPierce it was added to the Internet Archive in 2010 and has more than 5,500 downloads. The Turner Diaries by William Pierce (deceased) is no longer in copyright and it's public domain. You can see clearly at https://archive.org/details/TheTurnerDiariesByAndrewMacdonald it was added to the Internet Archive in 2010 and has more than 12,800 downloads.Pussypimples (talk) 08:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That it's available on the Internet Archive doesn't mean it's out of copyright. As I mentioned, they seem to have been uploaded by a third party (and in the case of The Turner Diaries, contains advertisements for the uploader's site). I'm going to remove the links again. wctaiwan (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The books listed by National Vanguard (the main site of the National Alliance) on The Internet Archive clearly state they are not in copyright and public domain. The books have been listed there since 2010, and have had thousands of downloads. The National Alliance has not ever complained about the books being there, because they were the ones who posted them there. Do you see the text Brought to you by National Vanguard? Why are you so eager to have these books removed that are no longer in copyright?Pussypimples (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(random looker-in) er. "no longer in copyright" on what basis? Unless Pierce has explicitly revoked his copyright, they're still copyrighted, and the law doesn't give a jot about what people other than Pierce say on the subject. Ironholds (talk)

The copyright of these books are the property of National Alliance, not William Pierce who is deceased. The National Alliance owns the copyright for these books and have explicitly made them public domain eight years after his death.Pussypimples (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The reason I did not see the text "brought to you by National Vanguard" is because it was added in the past few days, possibly as a result of this dispute. I thought I was misremembering, but it wasn't there a few months ago. In addition, "SolarGeneral.com" redirected to a different website as recently as December 18. I think this puts the claim that the publisher was the uploader into serious question. (And even if it were true, the issue of ownership Ironholds mentioned above still stands.) I admit I'm in part motivated by my desire not to see hate speech linked directly from Wikipedia, but even if we were to disregard the nature of the content, Wikipedia tends to be conservative on how we handle copyright, and this just isn't good enough. wctaiwan (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; fine. Prove the copyright transfer, and prove the NA release of it. Done. Ironholds (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your candor and can understand the heartfelt desire to not see hate speech linked directly from Wikipedia, but this is not a valid reason to have relevant links removed. There are likely hundreds of articles about contentious topics on Wikipedia that link to controversial subject works. Before this dispute ever started, the items in question clearly state they are no longer in copyright and public domain, brought to you by National Vanguard. The so-called advertising site http://www.SolarGeneral.com does in fact link to the National Alliance main web site. These books are explicitly not in copyright and public domain, had they not been, National Alliance would have likely sought to have these "popular" removed because of loss of revenue. The onus of proof these books are not in copyright are on you and you have failed to prove so. The books in question have been on the Internet Archive almost 5 years and link back to the organization that once owned the copyright for them as you can see at the footer of the description. We should seek arbitration over this issue before they are removed, otherwise this looks more like POV warrior pushing.Pussypimples (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no: the onus is on the person who is seeking to link to content that, unless explicitly released, is copyrighted, to show that such an explicit release has taken place. I don't think arbitration means what you think it means on Wikipedia, but I'm happy to take this to the copyright noticeboard if you'd like. Ironholds (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have not proven that the items are still in copyright, even though these items explicitly state they are no longer in copyright. I hope I posted the issue in the right place https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard if not please let me know where to take this issue. We need to have this arbitrated.Pussypimples (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the onus is on you to prove it. The fact that someone who claims to be an NA representative threw it up at the IA does not mean that the NA released the copyright, or had it in the first place. Anyway, I'll move the discussion there. Ironholds (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide me with links to Wikipedia information or documentation concerning external links to public domain verses copyrighted works that states editors must determine the status of copyright on items.Pussypimples (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

[edit]
Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia with this username. This is because your username, Pussypimples, does not meet our username policy.

Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below) and continue editing.

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account. 

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

  1. Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
  2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
  3. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.
If you think that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I think pussy was misconstrued as vagina, when I meant Pussy like oozing. I have attempted to change my name to GingerBreadHarlot hoping this is not too controversial.

Decline reason:

You've created the new account, so this account should remain blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2014 (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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pussypimples&oldid=1042467283"