User talk:Caro7200#top

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

: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)

::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)

::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)

{{unblock reviewed|decline=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)|1=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)}} Caro7200 (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

: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)

::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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=In_Our_Lifetime_(Eightball_%26_MJG_album)&diff=prev&oldid=1232850387 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)

:::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)

::::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 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlRTih3bisk the world we live in right now]. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 01:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::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)

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)

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 [https://about.proquest.com/en/products-services/ProQuest-Arts-Premium-Collection this database] (specifically The Music & Performing Arts Collection)? AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 23:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:In part--what is the title of the article that you are looking for? Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::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)

:::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)

::::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 [https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/suggest/ 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)

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)

: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)

::Thank you for the feedback. I will be mindful of this in the future. Appreciated. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

:This release date was also reported by some local newspapers: [https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-indianapolis-star-can-we-go-home-now/171203614/ The Indianapolis Star], [https://www.newspapers.com/article/clarion-ledger-can-we-go-home-now-releas/171203684/ Clarion-Ledger], [https://www.newspapers.com/article/grand-forks-herald-can-we-go-home-now-re/171203706/ Grand Forks Herald]. AstonishingTunesAdmirer ➜ 16:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::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)

:::Yeah, there's [https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-los-angeles-times-the-roches-speak/171206842/ 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)

::::Thank you very much. Callum0637 (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

: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)

::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)

:::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)

::::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)

:::::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)

::::::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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice#Track_listing:_what_qualifies_as_%22simple%22?] Fundgy (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Discussion moved to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Track_listing:_what_qualifies_as_%22simple%22?] Fundgy (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

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)