YoonYoungJo

Hello, I'm A Wiggin13. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

February 2013

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Rusty Hearts. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Josh3580_talk/hist 18:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. 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 Battle of the Immortals with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Josh3580_talk/hist 18:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Talkback

Hey there. When replying to someone on there talk page, it is generally a good idea to star a new section at the bottom of the page and keep the conversation in that section. Also, when your done editing in a conversation, please sign at the end with 4 tildes (4 of these ~ little guys) so people know who is speaking! this will auto-generate a signature! If you need any help don't hesitate to contact me! Andrew Wiggin (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you stop editing things till you can get help... you clearly don't understand that what your doing is going to get you blocked quite quickly! Andrew Wiggin (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Warning

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Perfect World Entertainment. Martin451 (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Addressing

Okay, I understand adding reliable sources, which I did. I always believed Glassdoor.com and BBB to be fairly reliable. If they are not considered reliable, then I dont understand what would constitue being reliable. And I am not vandalizing pages. I am placing information, Perfect World, obviously opted out of placing. Also, I always thought Wikipedia was a source of unbias, information, whether its good or bad. If I am mistaken in this please let me know as I want to make sure I follow the rules.

Glass door would not be my first choice for a reliable sore of info. most sites like that are nothing but hogwash. In addition BBB tends to show things in a much more negative light than it truly is. Why is that you might ask? Its where everyone goes to complain! Andrew Wiggin (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

About Warnings and Reliable Sources

Last time I checked, BBB is a highly respected organization, for consumers. Obviously business do not like them. As for Glassdoor.com, it is the only place employees can let the consumer know things from the inside. So my question still, are BBB and Glassdoor.com reliable? Because if there not, then I would ask Perfect World or the author of the page prove to me how mmorpg.com is reliable, since I have never even heard of them. I understand the company doesn't want negative information, then they should behave in a proper way towards consumers and maybe their BBB ratings and glassdoor ratings wouldn't be so poor. All they are doing is use you, to squelch our freedom of speech. I am not "opinioning" anything, I am merely placing additional information with two sources most consumers feel is highly reliable.

Now the BBB CAN be reliable... I just said it tends to be a bit one-sided. Glassdoor on the other hand is NOT. Glassdoor is where old workers from companies go to (pardon my french) bitch about how much they hated there job. NOT a reliable source. Sorry! Andrew Wiggin (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmm

Okay, you got a decent point there. I will retract my statements that cite Glassdoor.com but I still feel I should be able to cite and place information using the BBB. Obviously, your point about them being one sided is correct, but isn't mmorpg.com also one sided? So it balances everything out. Obviously, if they feel as you do and do not respect the BBB, then they will ignore it. If the BBB does matter to them, then they wont. That's pretty unbias in my opinion.

Example of what I want to place

"==General Consumer Information== Please be aware the company has a dangerously low BBB rating (F) that consumers should be aware of. Furthermore Perfect World Entertainment, is the US subsidiary, of Perfect World, a Chinese based MMO company." ITS ALL FACT.

Fair enough point. However I suggest posting your points in the pages talk page first and letting the wikipedia community help you fit it in the article correctly and efficiently! We are not your enemy in any way here but we must maintain the articles to a high standard and anything that can't keep it at that high standard must be corrected or removed... No one at wikipedia is perfect, but we are all willing to help each other! If you post in the articles talk page OR ask a user of help, your going to be able to work this out but the way you where doing it was all wrong! Do you understand? In addition, such a "warning", no matter how well deserved, breaks what is call "Article neutrality". All articles must maintain a neutral point of view and so a warning like that places a negative view and can't be allowed... Sorry... Andrew Wiggin (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Neverwinter. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. 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.

Unblocking...

Look. I am willing to work with you to help you get unblocked but you need to swallow your pride and work with me towards understanding wikipedia and its goals and rules. ok? Andrew Wiggin (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Already officially appealed it

Is there a way to unappeal it? Also, yes I was about to ask where I post stuff to get peoples opinions. Unfortunately I acted too soon on posting the other stuff. As I said, I am not trying to break any rules. And I didnt realize there was a place I could put stuff and ask wiki people to help me make it placeable.

It's ok. I will put in the proper appeals... however, chances are we are going to need to put you through the Adopt-a-user testing to get you unblocked. It means me and a few experienced users will teach you the basics of using wikipedia and then we test your knowledge of what we taught you. (Don't worry, its not so hard). If you pass it chances are you will be able to be unblocked. We will need to get a Admin to change your name ass well however. Sound good? Andrew Wiggin (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

One second

Let me read it all first. LoL it does sound quite involved, and I want to make sure its something I want to commit too before wasting peoples time. Also, I dont understand whats wrong with my name.

Nor do I understand whats wrong with it, but if a Admin said its wrong, we got to change it... Andrew Wiggin (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The blocking administrator made it clear in this edit that the inclusion of the username in the block reason was a mistake. It is an easy mistake to make, as the abbreviations used for the two block notice templates are rather similar. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

---

Requested username:

YoonYoungJo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

To add verifiable information to a companies website, to warn consumers of their activities. It is verifiable information from the BBB, which is far more credible then the the references currently being used. Also I was told my name is against policy, and unless this is an anti-asian place, I do not see the problem. Please unblock me if possible. Thank you

Decline reason:

This unblock request clearly confirms that you intend to use Wikipedia for the purpose of campaigning against a business ("to warn consumers of their activities"). Unless and until you indicate that you understand that Wikipedia is not a medium for this kind of campaign, you are unlikely to be unblocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

.

Very POOR choose if your actually trying to get unblocked buddy... Andrew Wiggin (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to assume good faith, but wikipedia is not the vehicle to use to warn consumers of alleged activities by companies. If that is your only purpose here then an unblock is unlikely. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, what is your relationship to NuHizer (talk · contribs)? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"In all fairness, I use Wikipedia quite alot. I only felt this addition of BBB supplied information would be an important addition. These arent alleged activities. I am not alleging anything. I merely stated the company has an (F) from the BBB. Furthermore I have donated to Wikipedia in the past, I have used Wikipedia for years prior to this. This is the first time I have felt the need to add anything. I use Wikipedia 99 percent of the time for reading. The 1 time I felt the need to add something, I am being lambasted for it. Also NuHizer is a cousin of mine, currently residing with me at my residence. I can provide more personal information, but I will need to get his permission first."

As NuHizer has added the exact same edits to three articles as those you have added, this is quite obviously either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, and both are equally unacceptable. Furthermore you have specifically stated that your purpose here is to warn editors, which is not the same as writing unbiased articles, and is not the purpose of wikipedia. To be unblocked you will need to show a clear understanding of this point, and will also need to give a bwlievable explanation for two editors making the same (now reverted) edits. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)