User talk:Kingabyan91

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Rhea Ripley have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Rhea Ripley was changed by Kingabyan91 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.906899 on 2021-03-27T02:46:18+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kingabyan91! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GreenMeansGo (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok I will go. Kingabyan91 (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Cedric Alexander. 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. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. Why do the computers keep changing my edits? Kingabyan91 (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

I've blocked you for an indefinite period of time, but I wanted to explain why. First, I want you to understand that you can be unblocked easily, by any admin who feels you understand the problem that lead to you getting blocked (fellow admin, you don't need to ask me, I trust you).

You keep adding material that is unsourced or simply original research (WP:OR). In other words, it is your interpretation of events, your spin. You can't do that in an encyclopedia. Our job isn't to give our spin on events, it is to document facts AS THEY ARE REPORTED BY OTHER SOURCES. So all your additions are having to be reverted and fixed, which causes work for other people who would rather be adding content instead of patrolling your edits. It becomes a time sink. I don't think you are trying to do anything "bad", but it isn't helpful and you need to understand what you are doing wrong before you can be unblocked. Please read the link WP:OR, and come back here and add a request to be unblocked, assuming you can promise to try to avoid adding this undesirable content. The above box has the text you need to copy and paste to make the request. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok number one I wasn’t trying to be unspecific, I was just trying to add facts based on what is currently happening because most of the editors do not put much information. I just wanted you to know. Kingabyan91 (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe you. I don't think you were trying to do anything bad on purpose, but it was causing lots of problems, and you weren't engaging with the people who were trying to help you. That's how we got here. To add information, or change information, where the information might be contentious (other might disagree), you need to have a sourced included. This including changing dates, scores, you need to source it and put the source in the edit. This is key to what we do, WP:V covers this, all information must be verifiable. Granted, not all facts here are sourced, but if a fact is NOT sourced, and someone removes it, you leave it removed until you can add a source. That is part of WP:BRD.

The big one is how you describe things in an article. You don't use your impression of a fight or match, you use the impression of the SOURCES, the references. Encyclopedia text is going to be a bit dryer than a blog or forum, but that is by design. We don't want lots of extra descriptions, just facts that have been reported by reliable sources, like trade magazines, newspapers and the like. Writing an encyclopedia is a very different animal, and takes some practice. While you practice, you REALLY need to engage with those around you and listen. Some will be super nice, helpful. Some will not. People are people. But you need to politely work with others, even when they aren't so polite, and learn. It's a lot of fun once you get the basics down, but if you are causing extra work for others, it isn't fun for them.

I'm willing to unblock you without a lot of fanfare, but I need a promise from you that you will use good edit summaries, don't add or change controversial things without adding sources, and check the talk page of articles and here on your talk page when others are complaining. If they are complaining about edits, STOP making the edits until you figure out a solution. Ask someone for help if you aren't sure what to do. WP:Teahouse is a great place to help help, btw. I highly recommend it. We want you here, but we NEED you to edit in a way that is more or less consistent with others, and with our rules. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok here is the deal. I will try to be as fair as possible, but I can’t make any promises. Deal? Kingabyan91 (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because every time I put more text, someone deletes it. Kingabyan91 (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No deal. You need to read up a bit about how the editing process works here. If someone deletes your edits, there was probably a good reason, such as you added something without any kind of source verifying your edits. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not a blog, not a forum; an encyclopedia. That means we have a fairly strict set of rules on what you can and can't add, and how it needs to be sourced. Also, we are the 6th largest website in the world, so we have well defined rules regarding behavior here. For instance, if you add content, and someone removes it, you don't add it back, you go to the talk page and discuss it. Or you get blocked. I can't in good faith unblock you right now because I don't think you get it. You need to read up a bit, as you do seem remarkably defiant in your editing, and then when you think you got it, use the unblock template above. Another admin will review your unblock request at that time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Alright. I promise I will follow the rules, ok? Kingabyan91 (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• again, I think you need to use the template above and let another admin review. That is the normal course of action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the point of being a Wikipedia editor is to type information that is currently happening, isn’t it? I understand why you blocked me. And I promise to be more respectful and fair to other editors. But promise me that I can edit, too. Kingabyan91 (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the point of Wikipedia is NOT to type information that is currently happening. That is the point of a newspaper. Encyclopedias are reflective, and they document facts after the fact, not during. News programs put an emphasis on being fast to deliver information, we do not. Our emphasis is on using multiple sources and being highly accurate, more accurate than the news. This is the same for any encyclopedia, and it is what differentiates it from "news". We are slower but more accurate. They are more timely but we are more reflective and balanced. Here is something worth reading, to help you understand: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So how am I supposed to edit correctly? Kingabyan91 (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to accept that you might not be able to, not everyone can. You need to understand what Wikipedia is NOT, ie: a newspaper, a current events forum, a blog, a directory, a place for original ideas. You need to understand what Wikipedia IS, ie: a collective of summarized articles on a variety of subjects, presenting facts that are (or can be) verified by independent sources (reliable newspapers, etc). We aren't the newspaper, we use them as sources. Same for books and authorities websites that vet their information and the community agrees are reliable. We don't do color commentary and we try to avoid hyperbole. Not sure if you've ever sat and read a real paper encyclopedia before, but that would give you a better idea. The goal is to convey facts, not wow the reader. AND you must be able to do this while working in a collaborative environment, which means if people have a problem with what you are doing, you need to stop doing it, and talk it through. If you can't, you get outside opinions. At the end of the day, the purpose of Wikipedia is to create an environment in which tens of thousands of editors can work together in harmony, and create articles that are worthy of use in a school setting. Clean, sourced, uncensored, accurate, verified, with a neutral perspective, with adequate detail to understand the overall idea of the article, but not infinite detail, and free from exaggeration or colorful hyperbole. In other words, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Sometimes a little "color" acceptable, but only if you are directly quoting the source, you don't use the words in "Wikipedia's voice". For instance, you can say The New York Times called this "The worse game of the century" and add the cite that says exactly this. You can't just call it the worst game of the century in Wikipedia's voice. Adding quotes like that should be extremely sparingly, for exceptional circumstances, not ordinary ones. Ok, that is enough detail for one day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I am doing but you are calling it problems?? You know what? If I can’t edit then what’s the point? - Abyan Muhammed Kingabyan91 (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've tried to explain the best way I know how, but it appears I've failed. You need to just use the template above in the block template, and ask another admin. No point in me continuing to try if I am not able to get the points across. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tried???? Who are you to talk to me about trying? I am the one because you blocked me ALL BECAUSE I PUT INFORMATION ON A PAGE??!??!!!! I hope you are happy.... BECAUSE I AM NOT!!!!! Kingabyan91 (talk) 23:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]