User talk:Wanggaeparkgae

July 2020
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Ə XPLICIT 03:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Unblock
I have added more to the appeal I sent Wanggaeparkgae (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The user who blocked me runs a kpop fansite. It is LITERALLY in their profile. This is a serious conflict of interest. They’re a kpop fan and blocked Jackson’s page from being edited and now are refusing to open it again or to let his fans remove harmful information. There is an agenda to this, and I don’t understand how Wikipedia is allowing this childishness. Wanggaeparkgae (talk) 05:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Unblock Explained in Depth

 * , to start off, blaming others for your actions is one of the easy ways to get your unblock request declined. I don't really know how you got the idea in the first place that the user who blocked you "runs a kpop fansite". You'll also need to address your hostile responses, especially this: when you're told to get consensus, you responded, "no btch change it". You also admitted doing what the Wikipedia community calls "off-site canvassing" and "meatpuppetry" right here - telling your followers on social media to spam the talk page with requests is one sure-fire way to get you and your followers blocked indefinitely from editing. theinstantmatrix (talk) 06:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User has shown precisely no interest in achieving consensus when it was explained to them that Wikipedia works on that basis, and as points out, subsequently went on to try (as they close to suggested they might on the post in my talk page) [meat/sock]puppetry to get their way anyway. That needs to be addressed before the user can be unblocked, and they need to understand that it's not punishment, but rather to protect the encyclopedia from the damage they might cause - if they'll ignore policy and explicitly express intent to defy consensus in one area, there's no evidence they'd accept it in any other. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 07:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

1. The reason I was blocked is because I was rude because I was rejected, which, yes, is childish on my part and the other social media things I said I’d do.

2. I will stop demanding it from others and being rude to them.

3. I will stick to editing on my own like the book series I was and be useful.

Now to respond to Naypta:

1. The user who blocked me has a Twitter in their profile, which goes to a fansite. That is how I got that idea.

2. About my hostile responses about consensus, I was like that because I don’t understand how I’m supposed to be able to get consensus when all of you already disagree with me, even when I asked all 3 of you nicely.

3. And yes I understand what I said I would do with the social media, but it felt like I couldn’t do anything else since none of you understood my point of view on the topic. I won’t do it again.

4. About your last paragraph, I said I won’t do the social media thing again, so let me just respond to the last few points. I won’t cause any damage. That has never been my intention. ‪I was just on Jackson’s Wikipedia page for Social 50 and was reading it and thinking about how so many things could be added when I saw the problematic one (problematic in my view). My intention has always been to help his page/other pages, not harm.

To end, I don’t know if I should just reply here or like fill out another block talk page on mine, so I will just see if you reply to this. Again, I’m sorry for being disrespectful, but I am also new to this, and I didn’t know it would be so hard to change something with which I believe I have valid reasons (plus, the fact that only his is blocked from editing added onto my frustration because the page needs many new things added). Wanggaeparkgae (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, can someone please explain to me how I can be blocked indefinitely due to disruptive editing when the issue was I could do no editing? Isn’t it wrong to block me for something I didn’t do Wanggaeparkgae (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wanggaeparkgae, if you want administrators to notice your unblock request, you'll need to use the template unblock, otherwise it will not be noticed by anyone. That said, I'm not sure your unblock request is good enough (although I'm not going to decline it, since I have already done that once). Speaking strictly for myself, you still seem to have problems accepting consensus when it goes against you. Promising to edit on your own is not enough, since all of Wikipedia should be written through consensus building. Salvio 18:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Unblock Attempt
{{unblock|reason=1. The reason I was blocked is because I was rude because I was rejected when I asked some to remove something I didn’t like on a semi-protected page, which, yes, is childish on my part and the other social media things I said I’d do.

2. I will stop demanding it from others and being rude to them.

3. I will stick to editing on my own like the book series I was and be useful. I will also obtain consensus when needed (I realize this was my biggest issue and will act accordingly).Wanggaeparkgae (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)}

Unblock Attempt (think i formatted other one incorrectly)
{{unblock|reason= 1. The reason I was blocked is because I was rude because I was rejected when I asked some to remove something I didn’t like on a semi-protected page, which, yes, is childish on my part and the other social media things I said I’d do.

2. I will stop demanding it from others and being rude to them.

3. I will stick to editing on my own like the book series I was and be useful. I will also obtain consensus when needed. I realize this was my biggest issue and will act accordinglyWanggaeparkgae (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)}