Talk:Brian Johnson (Bethel Music singer)

Primary sources

Walter Görlitz I noticed you reverted the couple of days worth of work I did on cleaning up this article. Can you give me a valid reason why you choose to revert it? I gave clear reasons for every edit I did in my comments. Simply saying I incorrectly removed content without being specific is a little disingenuous. 99 percent of the article is advertising. Most of the sources given are to places where people can buy his albums like Itunes and Amazon.com. Both of which are not valid sources, per the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Other sources given, like the one about how they adopted a boy is simply a link to pictures they posted on a social media media site. The other links are to Bethel's website, which might not necessarily be a bad thing, except none of it added anything or was backed up by third party sources. The rest of the page is just add copy with the sole intention of making Brian Johnson and Bethel look good, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. If the article followed NPOV in the first place, the deletions would have been necessary. So what is your actual complaint with my edits then? I have noticed most of articles relating to Bethel and anything connected have the same issues. You are also an editor on a lot of them. So are you going to do the same on the other articles and just revert everything that doesn't fit the narrative of you and other propagandists I see on here? Ultimately, I edited the article to be as neutral as possible. I also followed the rules when doing so. So I could easily just revert the article back to how I had edited it. I rather not get an in edit war with you though. So at least provide a proper explanation for reverting my work and next time someone gives multiple valid reasons for the edits they are doing bring up your complaint in the talk page before you undue days of their work. Also, I deleted most of the stuff about his pastoral career because it is separate from his musical one, is not relevant to the article, is not notable, and also there are no secondary sources to anything meaningful he has been as a pastor anyway. Even if it was notable. So can you give me a good reason why the fact that he is pastor on the side of being a musician has any relevance to this article aside from only serving the purpose of making him look good? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

You started by removing social media content and I misunderstood the removal as being a violation of WP:PRIMARY, which is not precluded in its use, only in how it's used. @Kuda188: did a fairly good job in creating the article. Perhaps you could work with that editor in paring back content rather than gutting it. Also, links to pages that have a "buy" on them are not immediately bad. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I felt by my reading of WP:PRIMARY that it was an appropriate removal though. You also reverted other things that I did like deleted his mothers nickname and just general cleaning up of paragraphs so they sounded better but contained the same content. So...Was there a reason you couldn't just revert the links back if you thought they were wrong and left the other stuff alone ? It seems a little heavy handed to undue all my work because of one mistake. I tried to contact Kuda188 and he never responded. He has also deleted other peoples complaints on his talk page and ignored them. So I don't think there is a way to work with him. Although I agree with you that links to pages where you can buy things are not inherently bad, both Itunes and Amazon are explicitly mentioned in the album sources wiki thing as pages not to link to. A moderator also deleted links to both of them on another Brian Johnson related page created by Kuda88. So I took that and the rule as a signal that it was OK. I also question you reverting my deletion of the citation to the baby pictures. Although it is not a social media website per say, that particular page is a mirror of social media posts. It does not provide any useful information either. To me it would be similar to someone making a backup of a Twitter page on Backpages and then trying to use the back up as a legitimate citation. It almost seems shady. If the adoption was notable and worthy of being included in the article, you think there would be legitimate sources out there mentioning it. Otherwise, its just virtue signalling about how good of a dad he his. Its not like I deleted that paragraph anyway though. Even though Wikimedia explicitly states that things with bad or no references on biographical webpages should be immediately deleted. I have a suspicion that the bad references are being used as a way to cover up for the fact that Brian Johnson is not ultimately notable or worthy of a Wikipedia page. Why else would most of citations on the articles for his albums be for Itunes and Amazon. Either that, or Kuda88 is trying to use Wikipedia for up-selling Bethel swag. Because I don't see any other musical acts Wikipedia pages on here doing that. Either way, The fact is the page could be improved and there could be better sources added. It could have way more of a neutral point of view. To that end, Id like to separate his ministry from his musical career, and tone down all the waxing poetic about how much of a great family man he is and the ego stroking stuff. Since none of that is relevant to the article. Plus, a lot of the paragraphs could be edited to be way more readable. But its not going to help make the article better if you just revert my edits over petty issues you might have. Adamant1 (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

It was a big removal so it was a big revert too. It's not going to make it a better article if you massively remove content that is reliably sourced either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

It was actually a bunch of little little edits over a period of several days. You obviously watch this page. So you would know there was multiple opportunities over the many edits I did for you to step in, ask me question about my edits on my talk page, or write a comment here. You didn't though. I went out of my way several times to check the talk page and see if there was any feedback for what I was doing. There wasn't. Cuddawhatever didn't say anything and neither did you. Your obviously making excuses. I have asked you twice now what you think would be acceptable and you have ignored my question. Like I stated before, this page, and the pages in the Christian music categories containing edits of mine that you keep deleting will be edited. I have given valid reasons and cited wikipedia pages on most of them. If you don't like it fine, but they are still valid edits. I would appreciate it if instead of reverting every edit I make, you respect the fact that my edits fallow the rules and stop deleting my edits. Otherwise I will file a complaint with an administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Please take the opportunity to file. I have been busy with other things and saw one massive edit. Don't forget to sign your posts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Gorlitz: Its fine. I know can tell from your edit page that your pretty with all those bias pointless reverts. Especially considering how much time it takes to scroll down a page. I'm pretty sure you knew it was a bunch of edits. Especially since you did the same thing again and still seem to have the same excuse for it that's still not backed up by any evidence. For reference as to Itunes being a bad source check this page halfway down at sources to avoid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources

The argument could made that it is not necessarily a rule because it is on a Wikipedia project, but it is still a project that you happen to be a side member of and its not simply based on my personal opinion. Which you seem to have no respect for. So far, you have been incapable of backing up any of the revert you have done with any evidence whatsoever. At least provide a link to a Wikipedia page to backup your reverts up or state how exactly including Itunes as a source adds to the article. In my opinion it doesn't. There are already other sources to things and if there aren't, then they are not notable in the first place. Plus people can easily search those websites themselves to find and buy the albums. So there is literal no reason to include a link because it adds nothing. Plus, Wikipedia is not a directory or a catalog. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not halfway down.

If your so busy, why waste all this time reverting edits that you know are perfectly OK? Because I'm pretty busy to and I rather waste what little time I contribute to Wikipedia dealing with this. I will though if that's it comes down to. Id prefer it if you just stop nitpicking crap though so we could both get on our lives Adamant1 (talk) 06:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of bias, pointless editing, that summarizes your work to a tee. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz:Whatever you say. I told you repeatedly what the points of my edits where, I put it in the comments, and I cited sources on Wikipedia to back it up. Plus, a moderator deleted Itunes sources on a few of the albums you reverted also. Its not on me if you are unwilling to accept it or you if think the moderators are full of crap. What have you done exactly? Oh yeah, nothing, except push the revert button repeatedly and call it a day. I wouldn't call what your doing editing anyway, because reverting things that were not bad edits in the first place adds absolutely nothing to the articles. You can't even give a good reason for reverting anything either except "because I can." You have no valid argument for anything I've seen you do. Any criticism you receive anywhere, you just parrot the person back or ignore it. I see people vandalize your talk page and you just blow it off. Maybe if you were more willing accept a little feedback, work with people new people, and do a better job of backing your reverts up with actual evidence from Wikipedia, like you did on the discussion of album charts, than people wouldn't be that way and you'd save yourself a lot of time in the long wrong. I could be wrong though. At least I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt in the other situation and I let it go because you provided a valid source for why you reverted me that time. You could show me the same respect by leaving alone things that I properly give evidence for doing or you could just continue wasting both of our time with this nonsense crap. Its your choice. I'm sure I am going to continue editing things that your though. So I'd appreciate it if you could just meet me half way instead of making me look over my shoulder every time I do an edit, because I have no clue what your watching and you seem to pretty indiscriminate in what you revert. You could also at least give me a rough idea of what you think is a valid edit. I'm not going to just stop editing things and disappear if you continue reverting me either. So if that's your game plan, you should really reconsider it. Adamant1 (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You don't need to look over your shoulder every time you do an edit. Just don't do things that are ungrounded in a Wikipedia policy, guideline or manual of style, and I'll add now, or documentation for a template, and you'll be fine. As for nonsense: you've cornered the market on that. As for me having no valid arguments, that's simply a lie. An outright, boldfaced lie. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

More to the point, the fact you don't like my arguments (that are made based on policy) doesn't mean that they're not valid. It means you have no clue about what constitutes a valid edit on Wikipedia and what does not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Good. As far as I know, I was doing edits grounded in the things you mentioned my edits should be grounded in. As I have already stated, I included references in my edits to back up my logic and like I already, I was basing the deletion of Itunes links based on guidelines of the albums group and what I saw a moderator do. I also tried to find a place on Wikipedia where it specifically said Itunes was a good source and there wasn't one. There was a lot of talk pages about it though that were mostly against its use. So it seems like even if there is no guideline on it, there is still a general idea that it is a bad source. Or what about articles like this that are just convoluted and hard to read, but don't necessarily violate the terms? because when I did a lot of cleaning up on it and a few other articles, you reverted the cleaning up on them along with the one mistake I made in the process. I am pretty new to this though and I never claimed to know everything there is to know about proper editing. Which is partially why you reverting me without given me actual feedback is frustrating. I appreciate the the rare cases where you did because at least it gives me something to read so I wont make the same mistake again. There was more then one time though where you just repeated my edit comments with a question mark at the end. How were those comments based on policy and how did they help me improve as an editor? I think we both agree that peoples edits shouldn't be based on their own personal opinions, but there will be cases where people interpret the rules differently though. It doesn't mean their edits are invalid just because they read a style differently than you. That's the main point I have been trying to make from the beginning. I wouldn't revert your edits on an article just because I disagreed with your interpretation of a rule, I would edit the article and try improve on what you did so the article would be better. The way you go about things, your either going to just piss people off or turn them off of editing Wikipedia all together. I don't think either of those are a good way to go. I think this discussion has gotten off track though. Since this is the talk page for for an article and there still seems to not be a clear way forward for improving it. So maybe you could answer this, There are over 86 citation on the article do you not think that's a little excessive? Albums like Undone or We Believe have three citations, two of which are for places to buy the album. The Bethel Link doesn't add any information at all. Its literally just a buy button. So like I have asked several times, what does that link actually add to the article? a citation is suppose to be a link that expands on and validates information given in the article is not? How does nothing but a buy button do that? You can't tell me at least one of the links between Bethel, Itunes, and allmusic can't be deleted. One of them has to completely unnecessary if not two. I think both Bethel and Itunes are. If you think Itunes is valid, fine. I'll just delete the link to Bethel and maybe you'll see it mine and the moderators way on Itunes eventually. Can you at least give me a link to a place on Wikipedia where it says Itunes is fine to use? Thanks Adamant1 (talk) 08:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Your edits are not grounded on policies, guidelines, manuals of style or template documentation. If they were, I wouldn't have to call you out in them. What you wrote above makes the case for me. You seem to be observing other editors and trying to interpret their actions and repeat them.

As I wrote in an earlier talk page reply, there's nothing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums or Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide related to removing links to iTunes and Amazon to reference release dates. You should not use these links in external links, but that doesn't apply to references. I know of WP:BADCHARTS that says iTunes isn't a chart. I don't know of anywhere that it says iTunes is a good source either. WP:RSN has many discussions about both sources, but none that state they are not reliable for release dates. One makes it clear that it should not be used for upcoming releases, and for discussion about songs or recordings, but for plain facts, it's never been a problem. If it were making claims about quality or something that could be interpreted, as it states at WP:PRIMARY, they would both be unusable. Perhaps @Kuda188: has something to say about the use of these sources.

And for the record, I think you're confusing our admins with the term moderators. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: My edits are grounded in policy, I have gave many examples. You just continue to ignore them, see below on your latest revert for instance. It includes many references to policy. You don't have to call me out on anything. You choose to because you are nitpicking. See Wikipedia:List of policies. I am not accusing you of anything but I think you should seriously consider what is said in the harrasement section about nitpicking. "Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated annoying and unwanted contacts, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information." Your the one on here who I seem to be having problems with and who is reverting my edits. Not just this one, but quite a lot more. If I was violating rules left and right like you claim, especially if I was doing it intentionally, you'd think other people would be on me to. They aren't. You might not be intentionally harrasing me, but its coming off that way. Everything I have done related to these articles since I signed up has been reverted by you. I'm up to like 500 edits at this point. Just by peer numbers some of them would have been ligitmate. Thank about it. As far as Itunes goes, I gave you that one source. Yeah it doesn't say they should be removed, but it still comes down to what makes a "good" article to me, like I said in comment on J Crew. If the information is already given in Allmusic, and there is even a hint of up selling, that doesn't jive to me. You admit yourself that Itunes is generally seen as not good. So why keep it? The information is already given in the Allmusic citations without that negitive connection. Oh yeah, here Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources "Online retailers such as iTunes and Amazon.com should also be avoided. It can be seen as inappropriate to directly link to a site where one can purchase the subject in question. Wikipedia's role should not be used to advance the sale of an album. Generally speaking, all of the information found on online retailers can be found at a number of other sites. Track listings, release dates, record label, album covers and track lengths can all be found at AllMusic. The content and reviews found on online retailers may also be biased in that these sources want you to buy their product." I agree that they aren't neccesarly making claims and might be ok in some instances, but I take issue with them being used in this context considering the above, the fact that the Allmusic links are already being cited and don't have the same problems. I also think it matters that Kuda88 got his account deleted for a conflict of intrest and he was one that wrote the page and put those links up. So more then likely there intent was shady to start with. I'd just like to avoid that kind of thing if there is a way to. It goes against my "editor ethics." I could confused about the administrator thing. I'm pretty sure that guy who deleted the page you reverted was an administrator. I could be wrong though. There was some administrator that deleted a few things on Kuda88's articles to. I never said that was the only metric I was using for the Itunes thing. I assumed if it was breaking the rules that an administrator wouldn't be doing it, but it was just one factor. Albums/Sources was the major one and also looking over the article for like a month before I created my account to decide what could be improved about it. I was actully learking around this and a few other pages for quite a long time and did a lot of research before I did anything to them. I think part of the problem is that we both know what we are doing, but we both want to just do our thing and not have to explain it. So we didn't, which caused problems. I don't doubt that you know the rules, I just don't think you know all of them and you also apply the ones you do know to rigidly, without considering the context or the other persons rational Adamant1 (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest revert

@Walter Görlitz:, "The primay sources to sales locations are acceptable for this sort of information." Where's your source that primary sources for that sort of information is OK? Its cool to say it, but back it evidence. I gave you mine as to why its not. Also, once again that wasn't all you edited. The other things where ligitimate. Or if some of them weren't, you shouldn't just revert everything and only give a reason for one the other things. So whats your rational for reverting the other things? Where's the specific rule that the edits violated? You really need to stop doing that. If your going to revert edits, you should revert each individually and give a reason for everyone. Otherwise, it seems like you just have a templete for the page and your just every single edit so the page stick to it. I'm getting pretty fed up with it. My edits were sound. Whats your justification for deleting the two qoutes? and what rule are going by that they add value to the article? I already gave you a clear citiation to a guideline saying why Itunes should be used, which you obviously ignored. Why waste my time asking for one if your not going to respect it? How does the second qoute waxing poetic about how great Bethel is fit the rule from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." It clearly doesn't. Its clearly not neutral or objective. or even number 5 in the same rules, Advertising, marketing or public relations. "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery." Also, "Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts." Which could just as easily apply to the other qoute about their concert that you also deleted, or really most of the information in the article. Forther "Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so." "Speakers leading at the conference will include Bethel Church Sr. Leader Bill Johnson, Sr. Worship etc etc" sure sounds like a promotion - advertisment to me. Even "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports," which is on the same page could apply. It could also apply to the baby thing we are disscussing. Also "Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." That one could apply in both situations and also apply to excessive use of name dropping on this article, which I plan to deal with at some point. You should know all those rules already though since you have been here so long right? ;) I like how called me a lier and said I didnt have to look over my shoulder, but here you are continuing to revert everything I do, based on nothing solid, after you said you'd leave me alone unless I broke a rule, which I clearly didn't. Who's the lier now? Adamant1 (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

First, it's liar. And while I'm at it

It's not its

legitimate not ligitimate

template not templete

quotes not qoutes

citation not citiation

discussing not disscussing

iTunes not Itunes

didn't not didnt

Second, WP:PRIMARY is the location that states

Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.(see below) Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy.

Note:

Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
• challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;[8]
• reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;
• claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

So instead of writing (with poor spelling and grammar) volumes of content to defend an indefensible position, I simply copied the policy I have pointed you to every single time we discussed this. You try to use logic that is not grounded in policy and then you call me a liar. That's simply pathetic.

Third, you're a giant pain. What's worse, is you're editing with a clear point of view and I have the guts to stand up to you. If you think you're right, take it to ANI. I'm not reverting every edit you make, but with that said, I haven't bothered to stalk your edits, but if you think all your edits are as poor quality as the ones you've made here, I will. Your call on both. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Thanks for the grammer correction. too much caffeine and a lack of sleep will do that. If my edits are spelled incorrectly, feel free to fix them. I don't really care. Using my spelling error's an informal talking page as an impetuous to threaten me though is pretty childish. If by "Edits here" you meant the edits I made in the articles, I refered you to the places I used to judge what I edited and why. If the sources were wrong, than that's on them. You should take it up with the people that wrote rules you don't like instead of newbie editors who make honest mistakes based on other peoples rules. further, just because you think someones editors are wrong, it does not make them "poor quality." Nor should "quality" be a factor in what makes an edit worth reverting or not, because "quality" is based on your own personal opinion, which is not the point of this. You don't see to get that though. I won't even bother refering you to the rule about threating people, since you clearly don't care. I think the fact that your the only here reverting my edits in any great number or complaining about them when there are million of editors of out there speaks volumes to the fact that it is specifically your issue. Just like the article that got deleted that you reverted was due to the opinion of me and one other guy vs you, but you clearly don't care about consensus. It doesn't matter to what anyone thinks or what rules there are that show your in the wrong, your going to do what your going to do. The reason this has gone knowhere is clearly on your petty childishness and your inability to lose a few arguements. Most of the "volumes" of content you claim I wrote was copying and pasting policy, the same your doing. So I don't see what's wrong with that. I did go a little overboard a few times, but it's easy to get carried away and lose track of word count. So I'm sorry if I was uncessarily long winded. I was just trying to clear about my points because when I stated them in simple terms you just blew them off. You haven't copied policy into every single thing we disscussed. A lot of times you just responded with one sentence answers that were totally vague, which is why a few messages back you went off about you felt like you didn't need to post policy because of how long you've been here ;) I seem to remember me messaging you first. So I don't know how your standing up to me. If anything, I'm standing up to you. Like I've said before, your the one being attacked on your talk page repeatedly. Not me. You can sit here and push a narrative that your an inocent editor that is completely in the right, but its clearly bs. Lastly, if I am editing from a "point of view," its the point of the view of the wikipedia rules, which I have cited to you multiple times. You clearly have the point of view. Since you think that a long winded sentence about how great a church is is neutral. If you think reverting can't be bias or based on a conflict of interest, your pretty wrong. As far as who is a giant pain here, that's clearly you. Its a pretty big pain having one person revert a bunch of things you do. I am in no way being pain for asking you to give me clear reasons why you did it though. You need to realize you a large part of this is on you. You intiated by reverting me in the first place. There is no rule against asking questions. As far as the liar thing goes, you accused me of lying first. So I just returned the favor. Maybe it is pethetic, but its more pethetic that you took it there in the first place. You know, I've dealt with a lot of people with your attitude in my life. When someone is so completely on the wrong side of things, they will personalize things, name call, deflect to petty details, and do everything in their power to make it look like they are being unnecessarily persecuted. That's exactly what your doing here. You quoted the source, which helps me see where your coming from. You should have just left it at that. And for the record, when you reverted because I edited the Brian Johnson page to dramatically I considered your position and I did less dramatic edits like the rule says how to deal with being reverted, which you also subsequently reverted. Then I edited even less on the page and I was clearer in my reasoning, which you subsequently reverted also...So....You clearly don't have a middle ground here. I also was willing to say I was wrong on several other pages. I don't see you doing that on anything. I just see you being petty and opportunistic every chance you get. I don't you even care about the articles or improving them. I think your main thing is just being right. P.S. if you want to stalk my edits on some obscure politicians page go for it. Unlike you, I don't have a perfectionist complex. So I don't mind having my work reviewed. Someones going to review things I do eventually anyway. Plus, its your time wasted and it gives me more of an arguement that your harrasing me if I ever decide to report you. Not that I need more evidence at this point Adamant1 (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

You referred me to which pages exactly? I see no links to any pages on Wikipedia.

I helped write the rules, and you can too.

Yes. Poor quality content and poor quality attention to detail make for poor quality edits.

WP:NPA is about not making personal attacks, including threats, which I have not made.

There are not even millions of editors on (English) Wikipedia. See Special:ActiveUsers. Once again, you're using hyperbole. Don't. It's not the way to discuss things. Make clear, factual points.

There was no article that was deleted. You requested a PROD. An editor said it was an inappropriate request and redirected the page, and I used correct criteria to state that the article shouldn't even have been nominated for PROD. Feel free to take it to AfD if you think it's not notable.

Most of what you wrote here was not policy. You have written just over 3,000 words in the first section and not a single copy from a policy or guideline, although there are some links to them.

You're right, I don't have a middle ground. It seems you have the same issue, and you don't like being wrong. I'm willing to learn when people point me to policies, guidelines, manuals of style and other discussions. When I argue, I do it from policies, guidelines, manuals of style and other discussions. I generally don't do it from my own opinion. And the difference between you and me is not one of quality, it's one of taking those lessons and building on them.

So it's time to drop this topic Adamant1. Read WP:STICK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz:Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, I put it further up. Its where the thing about not using Itunes sources is that you ignored. I also refered you to the harrasment page and a few others. Its cool though. At least you can look at the albums/sources if you feel like it. Cool if you helped write "the rules." I was talking the specific rule in Albums/Sources about not using Itunes as a source that you have an issue with. You say my edits are poor quality, but like I've said, you seem to be the only one having an issue with them. Plus, I agreed with you that a few of them were bad, but I'm still learning. I never claimed otherwise. The problem is you refuse to acknowledge that some of what you think were poor edits are just differences of opinion or the fact that I was reading guidlines that you hadn't, like Albums/Sources above. The poor edits I did do in know way negates your poor reverts either. Your threat was saying that you where going to follow me around and revert my edits because I misspelled a few things on a talk page. That even after you told me I didn't have to look over my shoulder. The thing about there being millions of editors was not hyperbole, I just picked a number. It doesn't matter what the number of users is anyway because the correctness of my arguement didn't hinge on that. I've used clear facts repeatedly. You sure seem to like repeating that I don't though. Its a fact that your the only one taking issuse with my edits, its a fact that Albums/Sources says ITunes is a bad source, its a fact that you reverted perfectly good edits along with the bad ones, which I have given you clear examples of. Its also a fact that "Bethel is all about cultivating an atmosphere of praise that invites the presence of God to move in a powerful way" is not neutural at all, but yet you reverted my edit of it anyway. Its also a fact that you are ignoring the consensus rule. Those are facts. You also don't always disscuss things from the guidelines etc. Saying that your right because you have been here longer is not a guideline. Calling me pethetic is not based on guidelines either. Neither And the fact still remains that everything of mine that you reverted still stands. If you were willing to admit you where wrong, you would have put some of it back to how I had it before you reverted me. You can ignore those things if you want, but they are still facts. I appreciate you admiting your problem. I'm not a fan of being wrong either. I have learned learned lessons and built on them though. Like I said before, I backed off on the Brian Johnson edit and did smaller edits when you reverted me. I'm not asking for pages to be removed anymore either. It seems like you haven't learned any lessons. Your talk page is full of ten years worth of people chastising you for improbably reverting them. Your still doing it. So I see know evidence have learned anything at all. You sure haven't in this instance. You continued to revert me even after I cited Albums/Sources and the other sources. So...

Yeah, I agree we should drop the subject. It really should have been dropped the two or three times I told you to leave me alone. You should also learn from Albums/Sources and leave me alone the next time I delete a bad citation to ITunes and don't nitpick by reverting my good faith edits like that one source I referenced says. Otherwise, we will be right back here again over some other pointless petty crap you feel like doing. I don't know about you, but I really don't want to do this again. So, just back off so we don't have to. Adamant1 (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

So if you think it should have been dropped, why do you keep trying to claim you're right when you're clearly wrong on the subject? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Templates

@Walter Görlitz: Hi Walter. Once again, how hard is it to bring up an edit in a talk page before reverting it? Also, once again, just because I did not give a reason for putting the templates there not mean I did not have a valid reason for doing so. You say yourself that I didn't give a reason. Then you bring up the discussion about the validity of having links to commercial websites, which is to me was never resolved but that's another matter, when that was not my reason for putting the spam template there. I was saying the article is written like spam, in my opinion. Per Wikiepdia advert template "Add this to articles that need help from other editors because in whole or part they are advertisements masquerading as articles. For example, they may tell users to buy the company's product, provide price lists, give links to online sellers, or use unencyclopedic or meaningless buzzwords." Also, "Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted.." Also This page in a nutshell: An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope. There is also something that I cant find right now about how articles that just list things like album releases should be rewritten to include notable details etc because there are essential advertisements. Anyway, If the spam template or any other is inappropriate fine. I can't remember why I put it up in the first place. I think it was in connection to the advert template. but Ultimately, I think I have the right to put up whatever template I want, within reason of course. Especially, as a way to bring other people to the article in order to improve it, which is what I was doing. And I don't think you have the right to revert it without discussing it in the talk page first and until there is a consensus reached that the template should be taken down. As per Help:Maintenance template removal Once again, your single opinion, is not a consensus. Which says nothing about the ability to take a template down through reversion. Also, once again, the article is written badly, could be improved or cleaned up, and there is no reason why you should have an issue with someone doing that. Also I would refer you to the reverting:help section which says "In the edit summary or on the talk page, succinctly explain why the change you are reverting was a bad idea or why reverting it is a better idea." You don't seem to be doing that. So, in my opinion your clearly not following the template or reversion rules. Adamant1 (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Seriously Adamant1. You keep whipping this dead horse. Using commercial references is not adding spam. Get a life. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Really? Your the one that brought up the commercial references in the first place. I specifically said the spam template had nothing to do with them and was about the body of the text. How about instead of just throwing insults, you address the actual content of my message and follow the rules by discussing the issue you have with a persons edit in the talk pages before you revert them. I don't see why your so incapable of doing that. It would make things a lot easier if you did. Plus, there would not have been a problem in the first place. Not to mention, the article is not even partially locked and your not an admin. So people have a right to edit it how ever they see fit and its not your right to control the article by reverting every edit that you disagree with. Adamant1 (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

First, I'm sorry. I shouldn't have made that comment.

Second, this article is obviously on my watchlist. You do not need to ping me.

Third, I don't recall having a problem with commercial references. Can you link to where I said they were a problem.

Fourth, the article is in no way written like SPAM. Please convince me otherwise. I honestly don't see it. Where is the "advertisement"? Where are the enticements to buy the subject's products? I really do not see it.

Sometimes, albums don't get much coverage and we simply list them in a discography. That's not an effort to sell them. It's an effort to inform readers about their existence. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Although its nice to see you apologize, it seems a little pointless to apologize for your behavior at this point. Maybe if you did not have a history of using lame attacks like that, along with pushing me around, it would make a difference. At this point though, I could care less your actually choosing to take the high road. I'm sick of having this endless conversation about commercial linking. I gave you multiple sources to where it is wrong, and all you have is BS retorts like "It's been dealt with" and "because I say it corrects in this situation so it is." You have not given me a clear reason as to why this article is somehow exempt from following the rules every other article out there does. All you have done throughout this is bully me with your opinion and force me into not editing the page anymore or any other ones related to it, by endlessly reverting me without following the rules of reverting. Even though you yammer on endlessly about how important rules are. None of the reverts you have done followed the reversion rules. You don't care about other peoples opinions either. You have ignored anyone else that sides with me, although known seems to side with you on any of it. You forced the conversation about the whole to be over by telling me in a threatening way to end the conversation. Somehow that is your claim to the whole thing being resolved. I guess you win. Feel free to do your victory lap around your bias, badly written, rule breaking page. Good job. You pushed someone into not editing a page anymore. I'm sure you'll get a special medal for it from your bias Christian Wikipedia buddies. I'm also sure Brain Johnson is over joyed his Wikipedia gets to be used as a BS way to funnel more money into his bank account through extra clicks to his albums and propaganda about how great he is. You, Kuda, Etc etc, obviously don't give a crap about Wikipedia being a neutral encyclopedic source of information, at least when it comes to Christian subjects. You rather it be fluffy, bias, circle jerk. That's fine. I really don't give a crap anymore. I have better things to do then put time and effort into editing pages just to have you undermine my work so you can push your BS Christian agenda. Have fun with it. I'm sure the people the page is meant for, other mushed brained Christians like you and Kuda, think it is great the way it is. So there's no reason to change it anyway. The crappy thing about all this, and your GD attitude is that you know you wont be held accountable for it. You know you can revert whatever you want and the person your reverting cant do #$#% about it, otherwise they are reversion waring and they will be the ones that get in trouble. I think that's partly why you do it. It's a really screwed up system and I don't blame you for taking advantage of it. I know you don't give a crap, but it comes at the cost of your integrity. So at least your losing that, if nothing else. Personally, instead of losing my integrity, I rather just be done with your stupid petty childish BS and not edit the pages you follow anymore. So have at them. Enjoy reverting other people over childish BS instead of adding anything of actual value. I have nothing more to say to you on this subject or any other. Adamant1 (talk) 07:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm tired of you Adamant1. You don't seem to understand the simple facts of Wikipedia. It's time for you to seek a third-opinion again. You ignored the last one when left on another article over the exact same dispute. With more than 6000 on my watchlist, I can't recall where, so let's jump through these hoops again for you. What you call "commercial linking" is actually, in Wikipedia terms a "primary source". No one is actually trying to sell anything here. So either open an RfC or some other third-party opinion on this article or back down. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Good for you. The last time I checked your the one that messaged me again and continued to F with crap I did after I told you leave me alone. Even after I was gone and let things go you continued. Just like now, when your continuing to message me after I told you not to anymore. So who is the one with the issue here? Its clearly you and your inability to just shout the F up and leave people alone after they ask you to multiple times. Your keeping this back and forth bullcrap going not me. I already said I'm not disscusion or editing this or any other page with you anymore. I've told you repeatedly I was done with it. I'm not jumping through your GD hoops anymore so you can continue to harrase and insult me. Get over it.

Also, why would I bother gettting a second opinion when you clearly don't give a crap about other people's opinions? Last time I checked,you reverted the banner I put up that was meant to do exactly that. Which you removed against the rule of having a disscusion about it before deleting it. Not to mention, there was already two other people who deleted some of the commercial links that you reverted, once again without disscusioning it first, breaking the revertion rules. Those were second opninions. Ones you already decided to ignore.You also didn't give a crap about a second opinion when I put a delete tag on a page that was not notable and it got deleted by someone else besides me, which you subsaquently reverted and had some BS excuse for doing, once again against the reversion rules. There's litterially no evidience you give a crap about second, third, or any other opinion except your own. Its been proven over and over. Its been proven over and over that you will just ignore any example I give of the BS you continue to do or any rule I cite to prove your in the wrong. So, I already know your a bias and that it wont matter. I already said I wasn't editing the pages your BS is involved in anymore anyway. Have your bias POS articles....Run them like GD Facist if you want. I DON'T GIVE A CRAP. Just piss the F off and do it without messaging me in talk pages like this one, in private messages, on my personal talk page, anywhere. I've said it multiple times, I DON'T GIVE TWO %#^# ABOUT YOUR GD REVERTS ANYMORE OR ANY OF THE GD PAGES YOUR INVOLVED IN. I'm not sure how I can be any clearer about it...JUST LEAVE ME THE F ALONE ALREADY.

Adamant1 (talk) 09:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

2010 History Section

So reading the 2010 History section, a lot of this should just be moved to the Bethel Music history, and just leave some basics about Brian Johnson's involvement in this article. The Bethel Music article sure needs it, it barely has anything under its history section. If noone objects I will do this in a few days.Awsomaw (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)