User talk:CAVincent

Hi, I noticed you reverted my removal of the mention of Egyptians in the White people article. Just wanted to clarify: the cited source says the group depicted skin color but didn’t conceptualize it or use related "White people" terminology. Including them risks synthesis and original research (per WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR), since it implies a connection not made by the source. Central16 (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Central16, I think I understand your argument. I see the paragraph as meaningful in establishing that differences in skin color etc. were recognized in the ancient world without there being a concept of "white people" etc. If there is consensus for the removal, that would be fine by me. I'd like others to opine on a significant removal. CAVincent (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I understand the desire for broader input, but I want to clarify that consensus on Wikipedia isn’t a vote it’s a reasoned agreement based on policy. In this case, WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH apply directly: the source explicitly states the group did not conceptualize the term, and including them implies a connection not made by the source. That’s not just a content judgment it’s a policy violation. If no one provides a reliable source showing the group had a conception of "white people", then the removal stands on policy grounds. Of course, others are welcome to weigh in, but I believe the current sourcing doesn’t support inclusion. Central16 (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)