Jump to content

User talk:Caro7200

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Semi-retired
This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Edit warring

[edit]

Could you stop edit warring at Earth and Heaven and take it to the talk page? TornadoLGS (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is clear vandalism, as you have noticed. Not even sure what the editor's issues are... Caro7200 (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems, from their edit summary, they dislike that the album got negative reviews. Whatever the case, just repeatedly reverting won't get you anywhere. Discuss it or report them. Either WP:AIV or WP:AN3 would work for reporting. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK they have put in a request at RfPP so admins will get involved soon. The editor admitted to writing the song so they have a COI. I have notified them of this and of edit warring. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
icon
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Caro7200 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Not sure what's going on here, as the editor in question has a COI and was removing whole chunks of reliably sourced material, and then doubling down on removing even larger chunks of reliably sourced material. This was a case of vandalism. Caro7200 (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The 3RR limit is three reverts in 24 hrs, you did seven in half an hour. Obvious vandalism is exempted, but it's not obvious that this was anything more than a content dispute. I believe this short block is wholly warranted, therefore I'm not going to lift this. I suggest you just sit this one out and take the opportunity to revise WP:EW. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Caro7200 (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the other editor is either Nicole Willis or a close associate and only edits articles related to her. I returned to editing when the academic library at which I work started hosting edit-a-thons, and have spent my time adding reliable sources, gnoming, and starting articles. Not sure that removing huge chunks of reliably sourced material can be classified as a content dispute. Regardless, it's probably past time to move on to more rewarding endeavors. My sincere thanks to all the editors I've met along the way. Take care. Caro7200 (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's sad news. But it is true. Wikipedia editing is a thankless job and if it is too stressful and doesn't bring joy anymore, it's best to move on, even if temporarily. Personally, I agree with you that in this case it is "malicious removal of encyclopedic content", as the other editor confirmed they had a conflict of interest and their goal was to remove negative reviews specifically. That said, though, whatever is considered "obvious" vandalism isn't clear (perhaps due to WP:BEANS). I was even hesitant to report our old friend to AIV because it was obvious to me, who can see the review, that an edit like this was vandalism, but it's not as clear to a random admin. So instead I had to go through ANI (where it got ignored and archived instead, so I had to ask an admin to do something, but that's another issue). Anyway, thank you for your contributions! And I still hope to see you again. I could count the number of regular editors in my area on the fingers of one hand, and losing each one is quite unfortunate. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 18:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it was a good break, and I was able to think about things. I'll probably finish over the next two or three months the 20 or so (Word) drafts I have, but I plan on cutting my watchlist by 90+%. I've been going hard since 2019; it's probably not healthy to be logged in 9 hours a day, 5 days a week, simply because I work next to the bound periodicals and microfilm reader. The world's going to hell (albeit not for the first time). I need to focus on that and do what I can, beyond choosing to not blue link DT in articles. ;) Caro7200 (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it's much healthier to not hyperfocus on all of this. Ultimately, we are building sand castles. It's great if we can preserve them for as long as possible, but it's not worth getting worked up over that. Although most of them are more stable than the chaos of the world we live in right now. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 01:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also add, and maybe I should have commented earlier, that vandalism does have a narrower definition in a strict sense. That is, vandalism is deliberate disruption. Removal of sourced content is disruptive but, since MercuryPidgen legitimately believes that content shouldn't be there I would say it isn't vandalism in a strict sense. And COI editing is not an exception to 3RR. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you further explain what three templates are correct on Eric Clapton Backless album page? Why you changed my edits?

Hello. Please see the style advice: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice. Three templates are acceptable, so you aren't fixing, correcting, or updating anything. In many cases, the template you removed had been in the article for many, many years. If you would like to discuss this issue again, please bring it up on the project talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice. Cheers.Caro7200 (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 March 2025

[edit]
  • From the editor: Hanami
    It's an ecstasy, my spring.
  • Obituary: Rest in peace
    Send not to know
    For whom the bell tolls,
    It tolls for thee.
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Hey! I hope you are doing well. I remembered that you mentioned using databases and ProQuest, and I was wondering whether it was The Wikipedia Library's ProQuest or you have access to it from elsewhere. And if it's the latter, does it have access to this database (specifically The Music & Performing Arts Collection)? AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 23:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In part--what is the title of the article that you are looking for? Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I always wondered why The Source, one of the biggest magazines at the time, was never digitized. And recently I found out that it actually was, but it's in this database. I'm looking for any reviews from the magazine which I'm missing; that is: two reviews from October 1998 (Shaquille O'Neal's Respect, that's supposed to have a quote "Shaq displays vast improvement in the delivery, patterns, phrasings and complexities of his rhymes", and Big Tymers's How You Luv That Vol. 2 that should say "Throughout the disc, the materialistic duo take you into a lyrical wonderland of six figures"), reviews from the April 2000 issue, reviews from the February 2001 issue, and reviews from May 2001 onward, excluding August 2001 and January 2002. Any help would be appreciated! AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 13:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No luck so far, but have found other RS for both--not sure why The Source remains so undigitized ... or why PQ has so many tiers (well, money). Caro7200 (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, money. It seems that this database is only available at some universities and libraries who are ready to pay. I left a suggestion at TWL's suggestion page (as it's an interesting collection; also provides access to an equally-hard-to-find-online NME, among various other publications), but I assume it's unlikely we'll ever get access to it for that reason. It's a shame they are locking knowledge like that. Oh well. Thank you for giving it a try! AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 21:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Deeds and Dirty Rags

[edit]

You recently left the following statement on your recent edit at Good Deeds and Dirty Rags and I am wondering if you could clarify exactly what you are meaning. You stated - "but you should do a better citing job with your added text". Goodreg3 (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You had added largish chunks of prose, with a citation at the very end of the paragraphs, despite quoted material appearing earlier. You're probably not alone in this practice, but there were also instances where you included info that a cited ref didn't support. Cheers. Caro7200 (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I will be mindful of this in the future. Appreciated. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 9 April 2025

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to The Roches' Can We Go Home Now

[edit]

Hello. I edited the page for The Roches' album "Can We Go Home Now" about a month ago to add the release date - 30 May 1995. I have a source for this date which I admittedly failed to add at the time. My apologies.

Please see the attached promotional advert as evidence to verify the change. https://www.ebay.com/itm/155289568124 The second photo in the eBay listing shows the date in the top right corner. Thanks Callum0637 (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This release date was also reported by some local newspapers: The Indianapolis Star, Clarion-Ledger, Grand Forks Herald. AstonishingTunesAdmirer ➜ 16:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great research! Thank you. Can this be done for some of their earlier albums? I was able to find the release date for their 1989 album "Speak" last month from another eBay listing of a promotional item.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/235991257356
The second photo shows the date "October 31st". Callum0637 (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's an article in Los Angeles Times from October 31, 1989 that says: "The group's first album in 3½ years, "Speak," is being released today by Paradox/MCA". AstonishingTunesAdmirer ➜ 17:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Callum0637 (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 May 2025

[edit]
  • Traffic report: Of Wolf and Man
    Television dramas, televised sports, film, the Pope, and ... bioengineering at the top of the list?
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 May 2025

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drastic Plastic

[edit]

Hi, why did you revert my edit to Drastic Plastic? Using the tack listing template makes it look more organized and less outdated. You mentioned consensus but I couldn't find anything in the talk page to corroborate that, so I don't see the point in the reversion. Fundgy (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It has long been WP album consensus that three templates are acceptable, which was recently affirmed in a talk page discussion. There is nothing at all wrong with that style, which many editors prefer. Additionally, it is considered disruptive to change styles that have been in place for years. Here is the project page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. Cheers and happy editing. Caro7200 (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything there that states as such, can you link it? Also, why is modernizing the track listing to the more current standard something you consider "disruptive"? Fundgy (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. "I" don't consider it disruptive: WP considers it disruptive, as a substantial number of longtime albums editors prefer the style that you removed. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice. Feel free to review, and good day. Caro7200 (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through it, and there just isn't anything definitive. You referenced a talk page discussion, and you should share it if it exists, because if it does, then everything will be in order. Otherwise, this seems to be something that I may need to bring up in the Wikiprojects talk page.
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice#Style_and_form talks about numbered lists being "generally prefearable" in cases of simple track listings, but in this case, you have both alternate track listings (i.e. track 9 was swapped for another in the US) and bonus tracks. Updating to the template here seems like it's a non-issue. Fundgy (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fundgy, I appreciate that you're a new editor, so go nuts with the change, if it's important to you. I do encourage you to take the time to review style advice, review talk page discussions, review edits, and try to learn how WP works on your own and by looking at past edits, as well as by asking questions. You also won't go wrong by considering minor issues to be minor issues. As an aside, I almost always use the template that you prefer. The issue is that the removed one was a) 100% correct, and b) had been there for years. Again, welcome. Caro7200 (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I just wanted to know where this consensus is, so I've brought this discussion up on the talk page so someone can help. [1] Fundgy (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion moved to [2] Fundgy (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on tracklistings and formatting

[edit]

Related to the dispute at Drastic Plastic that you are involved with, there is currently an RfC on what guidance there should be for bonus and alternate tracklistings. Please feel free to voice your thoughts there, as previous discussions on this issue stalled and it would be great if a consensus could at last be reached.-- 3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 17:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 June 2025

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion at ANI

[edit]

Hello, This is to let you know that I have raised a concern regarding your conduct at the [Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents). WP_KuruV Chsh1988 (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I hope you can fully explain your involvement there--you have yet to do so. Cheers. Caro7200 (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 July 2025

[edit]
  • Traffic report: God only knows
    Wouldn't it be nice without billionaires, scandals, deaths, and wars?
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Fogelberg albums

[edit]

Hello, may I ask why you reverted my edits to clean up the track lists on pages dedicated to Dan Fogelberg's albums Exiles and The Wild Places? And what did you mean in your edit comment saying that "3 styles are acceptable"? BadRvnemancer94 (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As I stated in the edit summary, 3 track listing styles are acceptable per Wikipedia consensus: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice. You aren't cleaning up anything, because there was nothing wrong with the style to begin with--many editors prefer the numbered list. In fact, it's considered to be disruptive editing to needlessly change something that isn't incorrect and that has been in place for years. This debate has been ongoing; feel free to bring it up again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. Please be sure to read up on Wikipedia's policies. You can also visit Wikipedia:Teahouse for help with your editing. Cheers. Caro7200 (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...Okay, thank you for simply repeating what I already read in your edit summary without actually answering my question. As far as our differing interpretations of how my edits may or may not benefit the pages mentioned, we can simply leave that up to creative differences. How about that? I'm also charmed by your incredibly rude and condescending suggestion to review Wikipedia policies. Apologies that my simple additions to these pages, as well as my question to you regarding your decision to reverse them, seem to have been such an exhausting effort in your busy, busy day. I sincerely hope you recover that lost time. BadRvnemancer94 (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 9 August 2025

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 9 September 2025

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent editing r. definite articles

[edit]

Your recent edits to Country Memories and Boogie Woogie Country Man introduce a definite article in the lead sentence, leading discriminatory adjectives/adjuncts.

If you believe this is correct, and would like to be consistent, I suggest you update the following articles accordingly:

All Killer, No Filler: The Anthology, Another Place, Another Time, Best of Jerry Lee Lewis, By Request: More of the Greatest Live Show on Earth, Class of '55: Memphis Rock & Roll Homecoming, Country Class, Country Songs for City Folks, The Golden Cream of the Country, Golden Hits of Jerry Lee Lewis, The Greatest Live Show on Earth, I Am What I Am, I-40 Country, In Loving Memories: The Jerry Lee Lewis Gospel Album, Jerry Lee Keeps Rockin', Jerry Lee Lewis (1958), Jerry Lee Lewis (1979), Jerry Lee's Greatest!, Killer Country, The Killer Rocks On, Last Man Standing, Live at the International, Las Vegas, Live at the Star Club, Hamburg, Mean Old Man, My Fingers Do the Talkin', Odd Man In, Original Golden Hits, Vol. 1, Original Golden Hits, Vol. 2, The Return of Rock, Rock & Roll Time, Rockin' Rhythm and Blues, The Session – Recorded in London with Great Guest Artists, She Even Woke Me Up to Say Goodbye , She Still Comes Around, Sings the Country Music Hall of Fame Hits, Vol. 1, Sings the Country Music Hall of Fame Hits, Vol. 2, Sometimes a Memory Ain't Enough, Soul My Way, Southern Roots: Back Home to Memphis, A Taste of Country, There Must Be More to Love Than This, Together, Touching Home , When Two Worlds Collide, Who's Gonna Play This Old Piano?, A Whole Lotta...Jerry Lee Lewis: The Definitive Retrospective, Would You Take Another Chance on Me?, Young Blood.

Thank you from Piperium (chit-chat, i did that) at 02:53, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Piperium. Please note the WP arguments for and against the use of False title. Many editors use "musician", as it includes everything: songwriting, singing, playing an instrument, etc. Also, Wikipedia's readers aren't that fragile; no one is going to break down because one Jerry Lee Lewis album article--or any album article--is written in a slightly different manner than the subsequent one. Cheers and happy editing. Caro7200 (talk) 10:57, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 October 2025

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 October 2025

[edit]
  • Traffic report: One click after another
    Serial-killer miniseries, deceased scientist, government shutdowns and Sandalwood hit "Kantara" crowd the tubes.
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 November 2025

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know your kinda of retried from wikipedia now, and I know having said that, this may be a dumb question, but have you thought of making any other wiki articles of Sweet Honey in the Rock albums or any of the current/former members that don't have a wiki articles yet? (even though yes I know must of them no one really knows about) but it's just a thought. AmaMcG (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 December 2025

[edit]
  • Comix: Madness
    It could happen to anyone.
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[edit]

You could have just summarized the quote yourself instead of leaving an aggressive edit summary :) I attributed the quote properly, quit acting like I plagerized. Lofi Gurl (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't take that quote from the Critical Reception section. I got it from a book. Also, I don't recall a single other time you've talked to me about this. Please pay attention to what you're doing instead of just mindlessly refeshing your watchlist looking for things to complain about. Lofi Gurl (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And if nothing else, this project is a work in progress. I don't see anybody else around here volunteering their time to expand underground rock articles. That's just the results you get for free labor haha. No hard feelings. My initial message was needlessly snarky. Have a nice day. Lofi Gurl (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 December 2025

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit warring: wp:3RR at A Kiss in the Dreamhouse

[edit]

Stop icon Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page.

  • 4th revert on the same material by you over several months [3] As mentioned before and I am the 2nd to say this, a 2 line text is not a proper album review as such, it is not suitable for the Review Scores box. wp:3RR
Hello. Sorry, you're incorrect. The ratings box is for all ratings from reliable sources that have corresponding prose (review, album guide, bio entry, etc.), not simply grade lists--hence the name. To argue otherwise would be to remove tens of thousands of citations from thousands of album articles. If you need help with your editing, visit Wikipedia:Teahouse. If you persist with your edit warring and disruptive editing, you may draw the attention of an admin. Please let me know if I can clear up any more confusion; I will also start a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. Cheers. Caro7200 (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The excerpt of the text about the band that mentions the album A Kiss in the Dreamhouse is duly reproduced in the critical reception. But the review scores is for Album reviews. Stop the edit warring. Iennes (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Caro7200&oldid=1331001679"