User talk:Realfakebezalbob

Warning: repeated addition of unsourced material

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at List of freshwater aquarium fish species, you may be blocked from editing. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi, I see you have not read the when not to edit section of Wikipedia "when to cite"

General common knowledge: Statements that the average adult recognizes as true. Examples: "Paris is the capital of France" or "Humans normally have two arms and two legs."
Subject-specific common knowledge: Material that someone familiar with a topic, including laypersons, recognizes as true. Example (from Processor): "In a computer, the processor is the component that executes instructions."
Plot of the subject of the article: If the subject of the article is a book or film or other artistic work, it is unnecessary to cite a source in describing events or other details. It should be obvious to potential readers that the subject of the article is the source of the information. If the subject of the article is a work that has been published or broadcast in a serial manner, then citing the episode, issue or book can aid comprehension for readers not familiar with the whole of the serial work. It also aids verification if editors are concerned about inappropriate use of the artistic work (a primary source) for interpretation.
Cited elsewhere in the article: If the article mentions the fact repeatedly, it suffices to cite it once. Uncontroversial content in the lead is often not cited, as it is a generalization of the cited body text. Subleads (generalized opening statements summarizing specific sections, paragraphs, etc.) may also be verified by the citations of the following text. It is permissible to cite such content (including with <ref>Sublead generalization supported by all the citations in this section</ref>), but not mandatory.

Realfakebezalbob (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

in adition none of my edits

Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editors not only add material; some engage in disruptive deletions as well, e.g. repeatedly removing reliable sources posted by other editors.
Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable.
Does not engage in consensus building:
a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;

b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.

In addition, such editors might:

Shortcuts

Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, or Wikipedia:Ownership of articles—or sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry that might not exhaust the general community's patience but still operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive, rule-abiding editors on certain articles.

Point-illustrating[edit source]

Main page: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently. Sometimes, this is done simply to prove a point in a local dispute. In other cases, one might try to enforce a rule in a generally unpopular way, with the aim of getting it changed.

Such tactics are highly disruptive to the project. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or related pages.

Note that someone can legitimately make a point, without disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it.

Failure or refusal to "get the point"[edit source]

"WP:ICANTHEARYOU" redirects here. For inability of mobile editors to receive messages, see Wikipedia:Mobile communication bugs.

"WP:Listen" redirects here. For the template to embed audio, see Template:Listen.

"There's nothing wrong with my editing!"

Shortcuts

Sometimes, editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia.

Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted. The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. Stop writing, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you. Make a strong effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement. Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with".

Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time-wasting, for example, by continuing to say they don't understand what the problem is. Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed. Realfakebezalbob (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning for addition of unsourced material

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at List of freshwater aquarium fish species.

I am done telling you the same thing over and over again, only to have you stick your fingers in your ears and go "can't heeear you!". The next time you add or re-add any unsourced material to any article, I will report you. You have received sufficient clarification on this point, including from an administrator, that there are no excuses left. At this point you can depend on being blocked. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no I added a fish is aggressive without a source I’ve added highly controversial material and I’m going to burn in hell Realfakebezalbob (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid

Dunce

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Realfakebezalbob (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]