User talk:101.160.147.5

December 2017
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Camila (album), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. 'Note: if you want to add or change content (or support the comments made in your edit summary) then find a reliable source to support your changes. That's how Wikipedia works. Removing sourced content just because you 'say so' is considered original research and will always be reverted. Thank you - the WOLF ' child  02:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
 * Could you tell me why users are pushing a US-centric view on the single's release? The song is getting airplay in other countries yet users are ignoring those of us that live outside the US and demanding that we subscribe to this US-cenric viewpoint. This is the second time I have come across people pushing US-centric viewpoints on music-related articles on Wikipedia. I know it's in the source but ignores the fact that this is not the case in other countries. The single was released on digital music stores on the 9th of December 2017, so why are American users pushing their country's radio release date as the official release of the single when it's not the case for the majority of the world? Thank you. (101.160.147.5 (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC))
 * There is no conspiracy here. The content you removed was supported by a reliable source. As I said above, that's how Wikipedia works. If the song is playing in other locations, on dates other that noted in the article, then find a reliable source to support that and edit the article properly. As long as you add, change or remove content, without a supporting cite, then your changes, whether they are factually correct or not, will be reverted as original research. I've added a 'welcome' template above. Read through it, along with the helpful links it contains and learn how to contribute to Wikipedia more effectively, or you'll just find yourself running into the same problems. If your edits become problematic to the point of disruption, you could find yourself blocked. Good luck - the WOLF  child  03:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * These two articles speak about the song being released as a single without any mention of the American radio release.  (101.160.147.5 (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC))
 * Slow down, read my comment above. If you have a reliable source to support your edit, then use it. - the WOLF  child  03:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry when I posted my second comment your reply wasn't there so I had assumed you had not seen my reply yet. I will read your reply now. :) (101.160.147.5 (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC))

That's ok, edit conflicts happen all the time. Anyhow, I don't know how much editing experience you have with other IP accounts (if you don't have a registered account), but you've only made 5 edits to 4 articles with this IP address, all today, Unfortunately, I've had to revert all of them, for the same reasons we're discussing now. I won't bother adding anymore warning templates to this page, I instead hope you will take my advice, do some reading, learn how to source content and add it properly, and then carry on improving the articles that are of interest to you. Good luck - the WOLF  child  03:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Additional notes:
 * 1) your last edits have been made by clicking "undo" and reverting my edit. But you're not really reverting my edit back to how the page was previously, (with your last edit), you are adding new content (by way of adding new refs). Therefore, you're not really reverting me. This is often considered as rude because I keep receiving "revert" notifications and these show up as reverts in my stats. The preferable way to go is to simply click "edit" at the top of the page or section and then proceed with your changes.
 * 2) you may want to look up WP:RSN as a resource to help you determine which sources are considered reliable.
 * 3) I removed 2 of your refs from the Sri Lankan cuisine as not reliable, but I retained the third as reliable. I also filled in the refs info, something that would be helpful if you would do in the future.
 * 4) Lastly, I'm in regards your source for your Filipinos of Malay descent edit. Are you citing content from the book? In that case, you'd need to do a proper book cite with title, author and page number. If not, then are you just using info cited about the book on the book's sale's page? In that case, I'm not clear on how it supports your edit. Could you clarify? Thanks - the WOLF  child  05:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh okay I never knew that reverting edits sent a notification to registered users. I shall "edit" it next time. Right I understand, I will reference that properly. (101.160.147.5 (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC))
 * I have added the correct citation template for the journal. Thank you again for kindly helping me. I'm happy to know that there are kind users willing to help on this platform. (101.160.147.5 (talk) 06:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC))

Stop making pointless edits
Receiving airplay doesn't mean it's been serviced to radio. Stop crying about Americans because you're too unintelligent to google the definition of an impact date.BlaccCrab (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This editor made all of 3 edits to 2 different music related articles, which have since been reverted. This all happened hours ago, so just why is it you feel the need to now come here, posting this needless rant, violating WP:NPA and making yourself look... not-so-awesome, all at the same time? As you can see, I have been having a dialogue with this inexperienced editor and they have been quite co-operative. They aren't mouthing off or just running away, like a lot of IP users would do, but are instead trying, and trying again, to learn and do things the right way. They are trying to improve the project. What are you, with your raving insults, doing? You should consider apologizing, striking your comments, and then go find some better to do. - the WOLF  child  05:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * They're trying to improve the project by adding unsourced (and wrong) information? Learn how radio works. Songs being released digitally (no matter what country) off a damn pre-order does not make it a single. He's edit warring, adding unsourced info and annoying people who actually keep the page accurate so spare me. BlaccCrab (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Like I said, that had all been dealt with hours ago. (and 2RR hardly qualifies as "edit-warring"). As you can plainly see, I'm helping this editor to avoid those making those kinds of mistakes again. As you can also plainly see, this editor is being co-operative. And, what I'm sure everyone can plainly see, your angry, insulting tirades serve no purpose. So let it go, already. - the WOLF  child  05:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to understand how things work overseas, radio in Australia is very different to how it works in the US. Could you also refrain from using such language, who do you think you are? I think you need to do some research on how things work beyond the US without posting disparaging remarks. (101.160.147.5 (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC))
 * I just wanted to show you the type of people I have to deal with sometimes when I edit Wikipedia. (101.160.147.5 (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC))
 * Just know that you don't really have to bother with this kind of person. You are fully within your rights to delete his comment from this page and request that he no longer post here, which he is obligated to abide. FYI - the WOLF  child  05:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "This kind of person" Yes the kind of person who after undoing vandalism, unsourced info and sockpuppetry, gets annoyed and uses the word "unintelligent". Be my guest get indignant over random IP addresses ruining pages that actual editors are trying to keep looking accurate. BlaccCrab (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The page looks just as it was before this editor made their edits. In fact, it looked that way when you decided to post here, which really means you had no reason to post here. This person did not "vandalize" the page nor is there any evidence of "sock-puppetry". "Random IP user" or not, you violated WP:NPA with your comments. Now, do think you can be adult enough to apologize for the insults, strike, or re-write your comments, and then go find something more useful to do? You're not helping to fix any problems here, you're being one. - the WOLF  child  05:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for telling me about that, I will keep that in mind if I experience this sort of thing again. Also, thank you for helping me. (101.160.147.5 (talk) 05:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC))
 * Hey, no problem. Hopefully they'll just move on now. If not however, all you have to do is say, "Excuse me ((ping|BlaccCrab)), but please don't post on this page any further. Thank you." - and it stops. Cheers - the WOLF  child  05:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help, I appreciate it. :) (101.160.147.5 (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC))