This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mariah Carey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mariah Carey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Mariah CareyWikipedia:WikiProject Mariah CareyTemplate:WikiProject Mariah CareyMariah Carey articles
Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2018[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Caution - Produced by: NO I.D, LUCA, & S.L.M.N Lpthegreat (talk) 03:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2019[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change “It is Carey's first studio project in four years, following Me. I Am Mariah... The Elusive Chanteuse (2014).” to “It is Carey’s first studio album in five years, following Me. I Am Mariah..The Elusive Chanteuse (2013).” MY GOD GIVE ME A NAME (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not done The album was released in 2014.--NØ 06:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2019[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Hello, I have had to constantly reverse numerous unqualified, unsourced and bad faith edits to this page, particularly regarding the album's commercial performance, its critical acclaim and the statement that the album has sold '80,000 copies worldwide' (a figure that is patently untrue and lacks any qualitative basis, seeing as though the album - albeit reported by @ChartData on Twitter - has sold over 100,000 PURE copies in the United States as of July 2019). I would therefore like to request that this page be made a protected page so as to prevent further abuse. Cucas1234 (talk) 00:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Page protection can be requested at WP:RFPP. Though it does seem like most of it comes from one IP so perhaps a block for them would be more effective.--NØ 01:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And yet no reply, because I'm making valid points, right? How is an 80,000 selling album worldwide, that left many countries music charts in one or two weeks, a moderate seller? Along with all the other facts I listed. This is not a fan page. You guys at Wikipedia are so phony. 2600:8801:131C:6F00:D40:ED7D:6C3D:831A (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some people are just trying to turn this into a fan page. Wikipedia is an internet encyclopedia, not a fan page. This album has sold 70k - 80k total globally, but the article says that's a moderate seller. How is that a moderate seller? That would be an underperforming album for a major label release. The two singles released from the album did not chart on any major music chart internationally, but when that's put in the article it's removed, even though it's true. The album stayed in the charts in many countries for one or two weeks before dropping off various countries music charts completely after that, but that's removed, even though it's true. This is Mariah Carey's lowest selling studio album but when that's put in the article it's removed, even though it's true. This is nothing against Mariah Carey or the Caution album, this is telling the truth about the album's performance, and that is what Wikipedia is supposed to do, tell the truth. You're not supposed to have fanboys running around moving facts from an article because they don't want something in there that they perceive as being negative towards Carey. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be used to build someone up or tear them down, it is supposed to simply tell the truth, because it's supposed to be an internet encyclopedia. Leave it to fanboys to try and get a page locked so any facts they perceived as negative is not in the article. But if compliments were all over this article, as they are, they don't attempt to get the truth out then. At one point in this article, it states that in the second week the album sold 14,000 copies in the US, with no link to back that statement up. There is no link to back that statement up because that is a lie. It sold just over 5,000 copies in the second week in the US, which is why is dropped from number 5 to number 55. Had it actually sold 14,000 copies it would have been higher than number 55. Wikipedia is not to be used as a fan page for any person, place, or thing. It is an internet encyclopedia meant for truth and facts; it is not meant for lies, half-truths, or vaguely explained comments to make things appear other than they actually were. It is not meant to re-write history because someone likes or dislikes a particular person or place or whatever. Just because everything in this article wasn't complimentary doesn't mean people have something against Carey or this album. It's simply telling a fact, which is what Wikipedia is supposed to do. The site acharts.co is a good place to see an album's performance. You can type "caution acharts.co" in a Google search and you will see the many countries this album was on the charts for only one or two weeks, not months or practically a year like many albums do. It was an underperformer. If that's what it is, that's what it is. You're not supposed to try to cover that up like Wikipedia is a fan page. At one point Wikipedia was requesting money in donations. People are not enticed to donate to Wikipedia when facts are removed from articles and the articles are being used as fan pages. 50.159.127.65 (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Poor excuse for an administrator. Letting a person such as Cucas1234 come in and fill an article with compliments and removing anything that's perceived as negative. That is actually vandalism. An internet encyclopedia requires being unbiased. Any perceived negativity doesn't matter, what matters is whether something is true or not. This is a poor excuse for an administrator, letting people like Cucas1234 come on here and act like fan boys and requesting anything perceived as negative be removed from the article, such as the poor sales of this album, even though it's true. Yet other musical acts and other artist's albums have some facts in them, whether the comments are perceived as complimentary or negative, they're facts. This administrator is letting Cucas1234 vandalize this article by only allowing anything perceived as complimentary into the article and allowing this person to misconstrue the truth about the subject matter. This is why many people do not take Wikipedia seriously when doing research. Look at what fan boy Cucas1234 is doing to this article The administrator who is allowing this can't do their duties, which requires being unbiased. This administrator doesn't deserve this job. 2600:8801:131C:6F00:F61E:1A78:E8AB:EBBF (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
