User talk:Pownu

Welcome!

Hello, Pownu, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. 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   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome! --hulmem (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

April 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Daft Punk has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Tommy (msg) 15:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Toyota Prius. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. AV3000 (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Roblox, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Domos123 Talk &#124; Contributions 21:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What? Its not like what heppend to Tosh's page....my contribution is not bad at all.

May 2010
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Daniel Tosh, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dawnseeker2000  01:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Materialscientist (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Can I ask why you have decided to request an unblock now, after 4 months? You say "I'm done messing around..." - have you been doing this during the last 4 months under another account or as an IP? --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 20:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I can find no evidence of this fact, and so it would appear to be original research (something which you think is true, or have assumed) rather than verifiable fact.

If this is an example of the kind of contribution which you want to make to Wikipedia, then I would not be inclined to unblock you, as this is not what the encyclopedia is looking for.

I would remind you of the relevant part of the declined unblock request above:


 * Propose some significant and well researched improvements to your article by editing your personal copy of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
 * It is not "significant"
 * It is not "well researched"
 * It is a "small unreferenced addition"
 * It is not "substantial"
 * It does not reflect relevant policies

Your edit does not meet that criteria. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 08:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Technically Metroid Manga is the comic book series that answers most of the unanswered questions about samus such as, who were her real parents, who's Ridley (the main boss(the one that looks like a purple pterodactyl)), where did the metroids come from, who's adam, where did the x parasites come from, how does samus's suit work, why are all the chozo gone, how and why did she become a bounty hunter, and where her enhanced abilities came from. if you read the comic you would understand, also the sequence would be =Metroid I - Metroid fusion - Metroid the other M and then Metroitd III (Super Metroid).

if you would like me to answer the questions 5-9 spaces above i would be happy to ablige.
 * That sequence you presented is directly refuted by reliable sources (including USA Today) - none of the sources I found said that Super Metroid came after the others in sequence. Also, your edit was a minor one, which was unsourced - so does not meet the criteria given in the unblock request above: the sentence is minor, unresearched (unsourced) and does not add significant information to the article. As such, it really does not meet the criteria which you need to meet to show that you can contribute in a constructive meaningful way to the encyclopedia. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 17:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Metroid the other M is the only metroid related article i would edit, but if you read metroid manga and played the games you would see that wikipedia is wrong. the metroids went to sr 388 in Metroid Fusion, then super metroid comes after. just read the manga online and you'll see that your sources are wrong.
 * The article is about the game, not the original manga. You seem to be avoiding the substance of what I have said: we need an example of a significant edit (one short sentence about a minor point does not meet this) which is researched (no sources = not verifiable = not researched) and substantial (which one short sentence is not). I am unwilling to discuss this any further, as you don't seem to want to take this seriously, and you are going on about an insignificant point, with no sources (the manga - online or not - is not the same as the game). --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 19:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Phantomsteve, about that comment on the top, i didn't really see anything worth editing until now or last week i guess.

I want to know how i appeal a block when i'm not wanting edit an article. I want to make one for Metroid Manga.

You can use the template. Post below, with  . I would strongly recommend reading Guide to appealing blocks first. Your unblock request should address the reason for your block, and you should try and convince the reviewing administrator that unblocking you will not create further problems for Wikipedia. TFOWR 16:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I just add that any admin considering unblocking your account (it won't be me, as I have already declined a request) would probably be best convinced by you giving a couple of the sentences which you would put in a Metroid Manga article, listing at least one reliable independent source for each sentence. This would demonstrate that you can find reliable sources which verify the information --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 19:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That site is almost certainly not a reliable source (it's a fansite). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

WHAT!!! the site has all the issues in the series!! what could be a less reliable site!!
 * I would suggest that you read Reliable sources, which explains how a source is considered to be reliable. Perhaps you could explain the criteria on that page under which the website would be counted as a reliable site? I note that at the site's "About" page, it says The development of the site has been largely a one-man show. [...] we've since expanded to include a range of multimedia and fan-made offerings [...] The content on this website is provided unofficially for entertainment purposes only. I do not see in what sense this meets the criteria for 'reliable' as liked to above --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 17:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

For the article i was thinking of making i was mostly concerned about explaining the storyline which cant be unreliable from that source. of course i would also have to mention who made the manga, but remember that wikipedia was meant to be edited beneficially.