User talk:2402:6B00:46AD:1200:7D61:4224:6971:941D

Hi, I see you've been makign some edits to Naporitan. I don't know enough on the subject myself to know how accurate they are, but I wanted to let you know that if you don't provide sources, the edits will be reverted, so I suggest doing that sooner rather than later. -- NotCh arizar d 🗨 11:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

April 2022
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Naporitan, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -- NotCh arizar d 🗨 11:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * For information sources, read the link below.--2402:6B00:46AD:1200:7D61:4224:6971:941D (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Naporitan, you may be blocked from editing. MSN is not a reliable source. -- NotCh arizar d  🗨 12:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Please read the link carefully. This is an article about the hotel and the restaurant that first created Napolitan. It is the content that the successor of the developer talked about himself. Are there more reliable sources of information than they are?--2402:6B00:46AD:1200:7D61:4224:6971:941D (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, a better source would be a secondary source. Anyone can publish an article saying "I invented this food, let me tell you about it". Also, once/if you find a suitable source, you will need to cite every part of the article in which your information is from that source. -- NotCh arizar d  🗨 12:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, after having a closer look at the source you've used, it appears that you have mostly just directly translated it and put it into the article. This is a form of plagerism. -- NotCh arizar d  🗨 12:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Stealing ... This is still minimal information. Who wrote it, no matter what, it would be like this.--2402:6B00:46AD:1200:7D61:4224:6971:941D (talk) 12:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * What are you trying to say? I do not understand. -- NotCh arizar d  🗨 12:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * In the first place, there is nothing to destroy, but almost nothing is written in this item from the beginning.
 * The fact that the original article was small is hardly a justification for problematic editing? -- NotCh arizar d  🗨 12:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * It would be better to have more than nothing.--2402:6B00:46AD:1200:7D61:4224:6971:941D (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * No, unfortunately it isn't. Good sources are one of the most important parts of Wikipedia, and a small article with cited statements is better than a large article with none. It can be frustrating when you know the information and true and don't have a source, but it's very necessary in order for Wikipedia to work properly. -- NotCh arizar d  🗨 12:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * If someone thinks there is a problem, the next editor can fix or remove only that problem. I have that idea. Then the article will be refined and grow up. But if there is nothing, nothing will grow.--2402:6B00:46AD:1200:7D61:4224:6971:941D (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I am the next editor, and I have done that. I am trying to explain this to you because I believe you're genuinely trying to help improve Wikipedia, but if you keep adding unsourced or poorly sourced information, an administrator may block you. -- NotCh arizar d  🗨 12:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

To call all erasure edit ... However, I appreciate your advice. Thank you.--2402:6B00:46AD:1200:7D61:4224:6971:941D (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)