User talk:Y00tu

April 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Report of Van Fleet Mission to Far East appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Thank you. Please read WP:SOAP and VANK is not a RS. Oda Mari (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source is not Vank. The State Department report is source. --Y00tu (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Report of Van Fleet Mission to Far East. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No original research. Adding State Department report is not original research. Please explain why remove entire article[1] The article existed long before my edit.[2] --Y00tu (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didnt add a state department report, you added an editorial from the Korea Herald. As I explained on the article talk page, I don't think that's a reliable source; even if it is, the section would have to be radically shorter and phrased completely differently.

In any event, you have no reverted on that article 3 times in the last 24 hours. If you revert again, you will break WP:3RR, which is a strict rule that says that you can't revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. If you revert again, I will request that you be blocked. Even after 24 hours, though, you can't just keep reverting because you are certain you are right. You need to go to the article talk page and discuss the issue. Please explain there how this article meets WP:RS]; if we agree it does, then we can work together to find a wording compliant with WP:NPOV. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Y00tu. You have new messages at Oda Mari's talk page.
Message added 14:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Oda Mari (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 at Report of Van Fleet Mission to Far East, you may be blocked from editing. Please learn more about WP and do not add Korean POV on the report article. The second link is inappropriate as the topic is the LR dispute and no mention about the report. It would be WP:OR. Oda Mari (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You confuse meaning of Neutral point of view, POV. The US state deaprtment report is not KPOV. --Y00tu (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 21:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. This is too much. I can not say anymore. --Y00tu (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2012 (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).

Y00tu (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

pov-pushing and edit warring single purpose account are too much attack. First of all, pov-pushing is not just me. second edit warring single purpose account are baseless personal attack. Y00tu (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please review WP:NOTTHEM before requesting unblock again. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2012 (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).

Y00tu (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Ok. I will Admit to what did. I did edit war. But, edit warring single purpose account is purely baseless. All My contributions to Wikipedia are logged. I did not created this account as edit warring single purpose account. Just check my edit history[3] and its talk page.[4] Y00tu (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Edit-warring against an SPA is not one of the valid reasons to edit war. You need to read WP:GAB, WP:EW and act accordingly. If there is any suggestion that future edit-warring might occur, there will never be an unblock (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:57, 4 April 2012 (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).

Y00tu (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

OK. I understand block. I will fully understand contradict editor. there will never be an edit warning to other editors. in the meaning of self-restraint, I request block my account for several weeks. The indefinite block is too much for this caseY00tu (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Normally each request is reviewed by a different admin, but I think this warrants an exception since this is so easily dismissed. Here's why:

Your request doesn't make any sense, suggesting that in fact you still don't quite understand why it was needed
Indefinite does not mean "infinite", when you are ready to return you can file a new unblock request, we're not going to shorten this perfectly valid block.
If you were able to make a compelling enough unblock request it could be lifted right now, but you say you don't want to be unblocked right now so let's just wait until you are ready to return and able to explain yourself in a coherent manner

Beeblebrox (talk) 03:38, 5 April 2012 (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.

Sockpuppet investigation

For your information: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Truesight The Banner _talk 18:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong? he is not me.

Rusk Document

After unblock, Can you join in Edit of Rusk Documents ? --Ejwcun (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]