User talk:Socapro

Socapro, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Socapro! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

19:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Chutney music, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". I reverted your edit as it appears to be substantial in nature. Krj373^{*(talk), *(contrib)} 22:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soca music and related articles

I saw this post by you and I wanted to make sure you saw what I wrote earlier on Oshwah's user page. I wrote the following:

I agree that many of the Caribbean music articles on Wikipedia are lacking good sources. A few musicologists such as Jocelyne Guilbault have written books on the topic; these should be the backbone of the articles. Not website forum discussions such as socawarriors.net! You are correct in taking that out in this series of edits which involve the London IP 2.99.64.43 and also your registered username Socapro.
I respect your expertise on the topic, an expertise gained through years of study. The problem, and it's a big one, is that Wikipedia must be based on published facts, not on new or unpublished analysis. The hard-and-fast rule is called WP:No original research—please read it. Original research is what authors do, and rightly so, but it is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you want to bring your expertise to bear on the articles about Caribbean music then you must either use your expertise to find published sources saying the things you know to be true, or you must write your own account and get it published in an established publication. Your personal analysis cannot be carried by Wikipedia.

So I understand that you wrote a blog article about Soca, to correct a lot of errors you see in other sources, but a blog is not considered a reliable source for most things on Wikipedia. You need to find the published works from the authors who you think have a good grasp of certain parts of the story. Binksternet (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NB: I am new to Wikipedia and I don't seem to be able to find a button to reply to private messages so had to edit this message to try to give my reply to Binksternet.

Hi Binksternet, What you don't seem to understand is that I have been trying to correct some GROSS & OBVIOUS errors regards to dates and timelines on Wikipedia in regards to soca music. Also any information and corrections that I make I have proof for via published album recordings or published video or written interviews done with the artist(s) involved.

For example the Soca music article on Wikipedia incorrectly states or said that soca music was originated in Trinidad in the late 1970's so I took the time to correct that error because I personally have published recordings by Lord Shorty of experimental soca music that he did between 1972 and 1974. So how is it wrong for me to correct that Wikipedia misinformation?

Also if the Wikipedia article incorrectly states that another Trinidad soca pioneer called Maestro had a house in Dominica and died in a car crash in Dominica when everyone who hails from Trinidad and followed Maestro’s career knows that he lived in Trinidad, had no house in Dominica and died in Trinidad rather than in Dominica. So why is it wrong for me to correct that gross misinformation being promoted on Wikipedia? This information is public knowledge to most knowledgeable Trinbagonians who follow soca music just as most Londoners know that Big Ben is a clock in London.

All of the corrections and improvements I am trying to make to the soca articles on Wikipedia about Soca music are accurate and can be proven so by referencing the music recordings or interviews done with the artists involved. I don't think published recordings and articles that I refer to can be classed as original research even though I have done some of my own original research on soca music over the years.

I find it a bit disturbing that Wikipedia is happy to continue promoting wrong information even after I have pointed it out and tried to correct it.

Best regards Socapro Socapro (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edit

Please stop marking all your edits as minor. They are substantial in nature. Also please review Wikipedia:NPV before continuing with your edits. Thanks Krj373^{*(talk), *(contrib)} 00:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Please stop adding duplicate 'cultural_origins' fields to infoboxes and please stop adding flag icons. You are effectively replacing useful content with useless flags. Please also stop edit warring over this issue. --Michig (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know I was not trying to duplicating the 'cultural_origins' fields but rather I was simply adding the flag(s) for the countries of origins for the various music genres to make the page look more attractive and and help the view to learn what the national flag of each country that originated a music style looks like. In the future I will delete the other field without the country's national flag if I add a national flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socapro (talk • contribs) 15:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decoration is not necessary. WP:INFOBOXFLAG states "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many." Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Calypso music, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All I did in minor edit was to add the national flag of country of origin so folks can learn what the various country flag looks like? How is that not constructive unless it is the wrong flag?

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Calypso music. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Stop adding flags to infoboxes. It has been explained why multiple times. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--Michig (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not involved in an Edit War with anyone unless it is with you guys. Stop making stuff to excuse your wrong assumptions.

I've already explained that I was simply adding national flags to the pages where the coutry is already listed on Wikipedia as the country of origin and they are minor edits that don't change the content of the page.

You are the one talking about an edit war as I am not warring with anyone here. I already explained to you what I did to try to get you to understand and to stop making wrong assumptions. Adding a correct country flag next to a country that originated a genre when the country is already listed as the originator of the genre is not an edit war.

You'll are making up stuff now to try to justify your wrong assumptions.

You Wikipedia people have a lot of misinformation here on Wikipedia and rather than encourage people to contribute and bring the site some respectablility as having accurate information, instr=instead you treat them like children and chase them away.

(edit conflict) On the contrary... looking at the history page of Cadence-lypso, it definitely shows that you are the one who is engaging in edit warring. The edits you've made have been reverted by two other editors citing concerns with the violation of Wikipedia's guidelines on avoiding flag icons in infoboxes, as well as what generally should not be linked in articles. I highly recommend that you discuss these concerns with Walter Görlitz and Michig, come to an understanding as to what these guidelines mean and why they exist, and try and come to an agreement together. Responding in the manner that you did above will not resolve the issue or make the discussion easier. Please keep civility in mind, and understand that these editors are trying to do what's best for the article. Continuing to make changes to the article and without discussing the issue first will result in you being blocked for edit warring and violating Wikipedia's three-revert rule. I appreciate your understanding, and I wish you good luck and happy editing. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You edit warred on several articles trying to get it to a state you wanted. That is an edit war.

While there is misinformation, your edits have been primarily to add flags to infoboxes. That's not correcting misinformation, it's just making it look pretty. The fact that you add <small></small> after the flags means you have no earthly clue what you're doing since it adds the tag to absolutely nothing.

In short, you are edit warring and you are incorrectly adding flags to infoboxes. You are not improving Wikipedia. You are also not signing your comments on talk pages. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just read you comment and now realise that you'll don't appreciate any of my efforts to contribute here so I will stop wasting my time.

All I will add is that I am music person and I have observed that there is a hell of lot of misinformation on Wiki especially in regards to Caribbean music genres like soca etc. which is the reason why I joined Wikipedia to try to help you'll correct the misinformation and make your articles more factually accurate. But now I know for sure that I am wasting my time because if I try to correct anything or even add a flag next to a country I am deemed to be in an Edit War with someone.

Good luck to you guys, it’s not worth the headache to me to help you correct misinformation on your pages as I am not being paid for my efforts.

Adding a flag is not correcting anything at all. And when you do so after being asked not to, you're missing the point completly. Walter Görlitz (talk)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Socapro. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Socapro. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carnival Road March

Hi,

I had to revert your changes to the above article, since you added a multitude of links to Youtube etc. Linking to external websites is generally not encouraged, unless you are sourcing material, especially when you are linking to webpages which may contain copyright infringements. . Also, generally speaking an interwiki link to another Wikipedia article should be placed only once within an article. Please refer to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking and Wikipedia:External_links for more information.Travelbird (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem on Carnival Road March

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from http://www.spicemasgrenada.com/press/2009/05/spicemas_25.html. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be paraphrased and some was removed. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Socapro. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]