Talk:William Matthews (musician)

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Christian music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christian music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christian music 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.Christian musicWikipedia:WikiProject Christian musicTemplate:WikiProject Christian musicChristian music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Billboard Christian[edit]

Walter, I've been wondering, how much Weight do you think the charting Billboard Christian albums list has in comparison to the music industry as a whole? Like, maybe he charted at 27 in the Christian album subgroup, but that whole subgroup might only account for like %1 of all albums Billboard keeps track of. So is notability based on "popularity" within sub genres, or the whole industry? If its popularity within a sub genre that makes someone notable, I should totally create a new style of music or create a "popular" album within some tiny sub genre so I can get a Wikipedia made about me. I mean, the guy didn't even make it into the top ten, with a Christian album, and he's got a page. So how hard can it be right? Adamant1 (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not falling into that rabbit hole. If you want to discuss the merits of one national chart over another, don't try to conduct on an obscure article, do it on the talk page of WP:NMUSIC. Currently as it stands, if the "album has appeared on any country's national music chart", it could be notable. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Gorlitz: Don't worry, there's no rabbit hole here man. You cited something and it seems totally reasonable. So I'll leave it be. I appreciate you backing it up with evidence. Cheers. Adamant1 (talk) 06:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is a rabbit hole. You wanted to discuss NMUSIC guidelines without knowing the first thing about them. But that explains a lot about the way you edit. You remove content based on opinion (how many refs did you remove because it linked to iTunes or Amazon because you felt it sold the product, when it was simply a database entry for release date) or other personal opinion. While I don't cite ever policy, guideline or manual of style, I have been doing this for more than a decade and I know them well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz:Actually, there is no rabbit hole because I didn't want to discuss it. I simply asked your opinion on the subject and left it at. For example, asking someone what the bus arrives and then saying OK is not a discussion or a rabbit hole. Further, as I have stated multiple times I based removing Itunes and Amazon on the guidelines given by the albums Wikipedia page, what multiple discussion forums say, and also because a moderator did it. As I've already stated, if those things don't live up to your standards, that's not on me, but I'm getting tired of repeating myself. You obviously have years of experience. I never claimed to have anywhere near the experience you do. I don't need it anyway. Wikipedia is not about "Whoever has been here the longest gets to dictate the rules and what goes on a page." Despite your attitude to the contrary. There's plenty of people that know plenty of things well and still do not follow them. You seem like a perfect example. Like I have said multiple times, I can cite specific instances in your edit history where you deleted the exact things I have. So its clearly not about rules for you at this point or if it, its just a minimal amount to get you by and justify your behavior. And yeah, I don't expect you to cite a source every time you do something, but it should have been done when you reverted a large amount of someones work so that they wont waste their time or yours making the same mistake again. I'm sure a guideline about that somewhere, not to mention it just seems like normal human decency. With all your years of experience you have to know wadding through the many pages of rules and guidelines on here is not the easiest thing to do. Plus, if you don't cite a source, than how does that keep someone from just your reverting your reversion off hand like you did to them? That's exactly what your doing, except I cited sources. It would be cool if you admitted that we just interpreted them differently. Its ironic that you nitpick this rule stuff so much, but then when I asked you multiple times for specific details about how a page should be edited you just ignored it. So I almost think your the one going down a rabbit hole of rule nitpicking to distract from the fact that you wont allow certain pages to be edited at all, if the edits are based on specific guidelines or not. I could just be reading into things though.

As a side note, I'm sure you can agree with me that most of the time people say "trust me, I have years of experience" they are usually full of it. Adamant1 (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rabbit hole did exist, although you may not have been aware of it. Just because you don't recognize it doesn't mean it exists. Not sure what buses have to do with NMUSIC guidelines, but it makes sense to you.

As for removing links to iTunes and Amazon, where exactly does the albums Wikipedia page state that those links cannot be used to reference release dates? I don't see it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums or Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide. Are you sure you are thinking about the albums Wikipedia page? The rest of your rant will be ignored until you can show me where iTunes and Amazon cannot be used to reference a release date.

I have never stated, that "whoever has been here the longest gets to dictate the rules and what goes on a page". What I was trying to say is that you, as a new editor, are clearly confused and don't understand the guidelines. WP:PRIMARY states when a primary source may be used and when it may not be used. It's generally understood that common sense needs to be used and judgement calls can be made, but WP:V is the overall guiding princple. So stop lecturing me when you don't know what the rules are. Not the rules of when references may be made. Not how to indent replies (see WP:TALK). Not how to avoid personal attacks (see WP:NPA). And for the record, as I was learning I ran into policies and guidelines that prevented me from trying to improve Wikipedia. As I learned them, my record for support has gone up. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, your PROD of the subject's recording and the subsequent redirect by an uninvolved editor have been reverted. Feel free to take the album to AfD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

re: "I can cite specific instances in your edit history where you deleted the exact things I have". Yes please cite them. I don't think they're the exact things you've done, but I'd be curious to see what you think those are. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz:Maybe the rabbit hole did exist, and I just wasn't aware of it. Either way, we averted stepping into it and that's the important thing. Yeah, I don't know where I was going with the bus thing. I'm sure it made sense at the time. Maybe it didn't though. This whole thing is starting to feel like a rabbit hole. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources almost at the bottom in the section Sources to Avoid "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." As it says, the information can be found on other sites like Allmusic, which doesn't exist for the main purpose of selling. 99% of the albums have Allmusic citations along with the Itunes ones. That is why I deleted the Itunes sources and kept the ones to Allmusic. So it was backed up with something besides my oppinion. Can you show me a place it says Itunes or a primary sales source can be used as a source for a release date when Allmusic, which is clearly a better source, is already being cited for the same information? I didn't think you saying you get to dictate the rules, but it does come off like you think you do when you use your seniority as a way to ligimate reverting people without having a disscusion about it first with the person or citing a clear reason. Simply saying, "I've been here a longtime, I know the rules and I'm busy, so I don't need to justify what I'm doing" is inadequate. There are clearly different rules and guidelines for things dependending on many factors, a lot of which I don't claim to know, but you probably do not know either. As you state, it's generally understood that common sense needs to be used and judgement calls can be made. I knew what the rules where and I made a judgment call. You just disagreed with it. I went into them in the other reply I wrote you. I spent a lot of time reading through the rules before I joined the site and also spent a lot of time reading through your user page and the user pages of other people, including Kuda88 before I decided to remove the Itunes links. So I had valid reasons. I partly disscussed them in the other reply I wrote you. As far as the personal attacks go, I don't see how I was doing that. I went through your user page and saw that you where being extreamly bias in your application of the rules when it comes to Bethel Music albums and artists. I also factored in the things with Kuda88 and MissSG that I disscused in the other message. If you are not a part of their circle fine. I apologize for assuming you are. Your behavoir of reverting things seemed overboard though and I saw you and Kuda88 edited a lot of the same articles around the same time. I also just noticed you reverted an administors deletion of a Bethel Music related page and you mentioned I should not follow their behavior. So can I ask why you don't respect their actions? You can see why I would think there's something off about all the actions your doing right? Really, if there is a conflict of interest you should just say so. Also, I don't know what AfD is, and I should't have to because you should respect the administrators edits. Calling them "editors" is kind of dismissive of what they do and their administrative authority Adamant1 (talk) 06:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So first, that discussion is not relevant here because this is where you removed a tweet and PRODed the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Matthews_%28musician%29&type=revision&diff=799368160&oldid=793686664

Yes, the rabbit hole exists and yes, you are not aware of it.

The class of links should be avoided because "track listings, release dates, record label, album covers and track lengths can all be found at AllMusic". @Kuda88: shouldn't normally use them, true, but you don't always replace the references with ones from from AllMusic, you simply remove the refs.

This is a sample and there are more in your edit history. They far outnumber the valid removal of refs. When multiple refs exist, it's usually called Wikipedia:OVERREFfing.

Removal of all references causes the information to completely fail WP:V. So yes, your reason there was valid, but it was frequently incorrectly executed. To be fair, you when AllMusic refs were present, you didn't delete them such as at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tides_(Bethel_Music_album)&diff=prev&oldid=799705656 but this one makes no sense as it's referencing the iTunes track listing which isn't contained anywhere. You can see why I reverted the edits to the Brian Johnson article. AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or WP:AfD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]