CAVincent

Hello, CAVincent! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —EncMstr 01:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

October 2025

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:53, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @EvergreenFir. Can you please clarify what you are referring to? I have a guess, but I don't see why this warning was considered warranted. If this is about White people and Central16, you have reverted that editor as many times as I have on that article in the last several days. To be clear, I don't mean to be combative, I'm mainly confused. CAVincent (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir I'm actually wondering if you accidentally left this warning on the wrong user's talk page? CAVincent (talk) 06:53, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I was very confused where my warning to Central16 went and why there wasn't already one on their talk page... now I see what. Very sorry about that. This was 100% a mistake EvergreenFir (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for clarifying. Cheers. CAVincent (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Pax Americana

You reverted my addition of categories with the comment "please don't add categories". Can you please clarify or expand on this. The categories are relevant to the article text. Cilantro-Breath-Overdrive (talk) 09:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

What was considered “improper formatting”

My edit to the Suicide of Kurt Cobain was removed, but I'm not clear on what I could have done better. I'm not an expert on Wikipedia, and when things get removed without it being clear what of my edit violated your reason, it discourages me from even using the site. Fastpast93 (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

A less important reason that I reverted your edit was because you failed to properly close the reference which you were trying to add. If you look at the version of the page with your most recent edit, the "improper formatting" should be immediately obvious. A far more important reason for reverting your edit is that it was not properly sourced: A sensationalist internet article is not grounds for adding a new conspiracy theorist claim to the lead of this article. A further reason for reverting your edit is that the lead to a Wikipedia article should summarize the main body of the article, which contains nothing about a "jump in speculation" in "early 2026". CAVincent (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the information.

I have two questions

-what would be adequate sourcing? That article was the first thing I saw on google.

-I saw no issue with the formatting and all I did was the typical <ref> and so on.

Fastpast93 (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

- Second question first: see H:CEIR - short version is that the second ref at the end of the citation needs a closing slash, i.e. "</ ref>" (but without the space). Otherwise, it just generates a bold error message on the page instead of the intended reference.

- As to adequate sourcing: I seriously doubt that you could ever find anything that would constitute adequate sourcing for your addition. I mean, if a quality news source like the New York Times wrote an article about a 2026 resurgence of interest in claims that Cobain was murdered, then sure that would probably be acceptable. But I can't imagine that the Times, or any other high-quality source, will be writing such an article. (I should also probably note that I and other editors are likely to insist on a higher bar for sourcing in an article like this than what you might find while editing most Wikipedia articles.) CAVincent (talk) 06:25, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello CAVincent! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Requesting temporary page protection, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Cure revert

Hello. May I ask what the purpose of this edit was? The Cure didn't have a song list so I created one. It took a lot of time to create and write that, and I don't appreciate you calling my work a "dumb ass article". What happened to being civil (which is at the top of this talk page, I may add)? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:54, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@Zmbro The world does not need that article. I'll step back and let other editors opine on it at this point. CAVincent (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

"The world" doesn't need a complete list of songs the band has recorded, all in one place? I suppose the several hundred other lists of songs on this site are completely useless? These lists have appeared on the front page of this site quite often, with hundreds of thousands of readers over the years. Why the hate? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:05, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@ZmbroFor what it's worth, "Fear of Ghosts" is maybe in my top 10 all time favorite songs by anyone. "Faith" is absolutely in my top 10. It just strikes me that a list of songs article is wrong-headed. CAVincent (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

In what way is it "wrong-headed"?? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:05, 26 April 2026 (UTC)