Talk:After All These Years (Brian & Jenn Johnson album)

POV of Article
I added the POV template to the article due to the fact that the article relies to heavily on glaring quotes from reviews about how good Brian Johnson's music is, along with quotes from himself that are not neutral in nature. If there is any dispute about the reasons I gave for the article not being neutral, either discuss it here until a consensus is reached or improve the neutrality of the article before removing the template. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Feel free to improve WP:NPOV by adding alternate sources rather than continuing your attacks on the subject. You removed the commercial references again after being told that you should not do so but should replace them with other sources, yet you ignored that advice. I suggest that you find a different windmill, Don Quixote. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * First, I wasn't told not to do so. It was recommended to me to replace them with better sources, but it was also said with the caveat that its up to editor discretion and that the rules aren't meant to be fundamentally applied. Plus, both people I received from said the amount of commercial links where a bit excessive and could be cut back some, if better links were provided or not. You weren't present for that part of the conversation though. Since you where on vacation at the time and so weren't involved in it. Further, I never said the POV issue had anything to do with the citations themselves. It has to do with the tone of the quotes the sources provide. Those are two separate things. Not only have you undermined any attempt to improve the actual citations, you have also undermined any attempts to make the tone of the articles more neutral. Good job trying to deflect though. Ultimately, there's no reason you can't leave the POV template up so other editors can come along and give their opinions or make changes based on it. That's the point in the whole thing. 99% of the people reading the articles don't really care that's its there and its mostly administrative. So there's no reason to remove it, except your inability to accept when your wrong (your own words). Also, reverting the banner and then telling me what to do isn't "discussioning it to find consensus on how the articles an be improved." --Adamant1 (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You may be referencing a conversation that I wasn't in. The one about why all links to commercial sites as references made it clear that better references should be found but do not remove them. Please feel free to link to the discussion you're discussing. wrote at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_21 on 08:08, 27 August 2018 "IF better references exist (like independent reviews of the material) then those should be used as references, not the commercial sites that carry that (maybe same, maybe even more detailed) information. Where possible, the links to these commercial sites can be removed as superfluous. 'Better sources' could even be primary sources like the website of the item itelf (or in case of a print-only book, the masthead pages of a book - we do not NEED an external link, we only need a way to verify information). I think that satisfies the criterion of making the encyclopedia better (improving the quality of the source), without loss of verifiability and a gain of protecting privacy in some cases." Do you know what superfluous means?  . He goes on to state that they should be replaced. We're dealing with WP:V.  might also want to clarify whether removing references to Amazon and the iTunes Store can simply be removed without attempting to find viable alternatives.
 * I'm not sure how I've undermined efforts to improve the citations, at least not by you, as I haven't seen you add any references. It's my goal to attempt to replace the viable links with ones that might meet your criteria.
 * As I sated, quoting positive reviews isn't a PoV issue for a band. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * On the POV question: if all the reliable sources say that this band/album/music/whatever is great, then the only neutral thing for the Wikipedia article is to also say that it's great.
 * "NPOV" means that we reflect the views of the reliable sources, in proportion to the views held by the sources. NPOV does not mean that we give a middling-to-indifferent view of the subject when the available sources are uniformly enthusiastic about it.  It also does not mean, in the opposite case of a subject that the sources have uniformly disparaged, that we give a description that sounds middle-of-the-road instead of neutrally saying that it's bad.  If the sources are enthusiastic, then the Wikipedia article must reflect that.  If the sources disparage a subject, then the Wikipedia article must reflect that.  Doing otherwise – putting our own thumb on the scale to make everything seem more middling than the sources say that a subject is – is intellectually dishonest and distinctly non-neutral.
 * "All the quotes say the music is good" is not an NPOV problem by itself. Quoting positive reviews is only an NPOV problem if you've got a source in hand that says something different.
 * In the end, you cannot resolve a POV dispute like this without providing sources. So, Adam, I have to repeat what Walter's been asking you:  What's your source-based reason for thinking that this article does not reflect the views of reliable sources?
 * (And if you're still convinced that positive quotations are inherently an NPOV problem, then you can go argue for the removal of the far more florid quotations in Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven), and tell us how far you get.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , my comment is a bit off-topic, but are you suggesting that Beethoven's 5th is better than the 9th? I don't think that you're suggesting that the music of the Johnsons is in any way of the same calibre of Beethoven. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting that the ==Reception== section in the article about Beethoven's 5th contains some remarkably florid (if entirely deserved) quotations that make these seem quite pale by comparison. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , First, only relying on positive reviews from Christian magazines or websites that are going to be slanted toward the positivist is exactly that. I don't see any neutral review to balance out the positive ones. Know where in the article does it cite anyone any reviewer that just says the album is OK, let alone negative. So its intentional use of only very positive reviews to make the album seem better then it is. That has nothing to do with being "middling-to-indifferent." It has to do with showing the subject in a fair balanced light. Surely not everyone out there thought the album "The neoclassical arrangements give the music an artsy enough experience to impress the hipster culture as well as the casual music connoisseur." So, it should be reflected in the article.
 * Second, I didn't say I had an issue with the sources or their opinions anyway. I take issue with the excessive use of quotes, blue citations to other Wikipedia articles that are unrelated to the subject and used multiple times like "Brian Johnson" or Nashville, Tennessee, and the over use of normal citations (43 for one album), which are all used to intentionally make the artist more notable then he is. All that makes it a hard article to read through that isn't clear.
 * There's no reason the giant block of text under "critical reception" couldn't be split up into multiple paragraphs. Along with summarizing the opinions of the reviewers so that there isn't a bunch of inline citations and less citations (even getting rid of a few of them would be an improvement and other people have said they could be pruned a little), that can use more neutral less buzzword full language. I was perfectly willing to do that originally and I had actually attempted to on this article and other ones related to Christian music. Walter Gorlitz has stopped every attempt I have made over the past couple of years at doing even basic style improvements. He does the same with other people also when it comes to these articles. As you can see from his many un-commented reversions both here and on the other articles. Along with the threats and bullying on my talk page.
 * There's zero reason his editing opinions should take precedence over those of myself and others. Especially considering the way he has gone about abusing the reversion system by reverting even basic edits.
 * That's slightly off topic though, but its at least a major reason why I put up the POV template in the first place. In order to get outside opinions about how the article is written (which he also tried to block multiple times btw). Ultimately I don't see the POV template as a commitment to drastically edit the article. I see it more as a tool to bring other editors in to brain storm how the article can be improved to be neutral. I don't see why he would have an issue with that. Every article could use improvement in some area. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, id add that the original creator of most the Bethel Music related articles, including this one I think, probably has an undisclosed conflict of interest and he edits all the articles in the same exact intentional, none encyclopedic, miss-leading way. I am not the only to bring up it up and he refuses to address it. All his social media accounts are singularly focused on pushing Bethel Music stuff and pages related to them are the vast majority of edits he does. That also factors a lot into my thinking that the article is POV worthy. If it was written from a slanted, overly positive perspective in the first place, by someone that has a history of doing the same with other articles and a vested interest in the subject, and the article hasn't been drastically edited since then its clearly not from a neutral perspective. The writers of the articles, their intentions, and their rhetorical methods matter as much as the sources do in my opinion. In a lot of cases the remedy would be as simple as rewording some things, but as I've said I can't even do that much. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The glowing reviews from Christian review sites are not that uncommon. Reviews in general tend to focus on the good and omit the bad. Compare with other album review articles.
 * The "giant block" isn't that large. Compare with other album review articles.
 * As I stated on your talk page, if you have concerns that Kuda188's editing is actually a CoI, raise it at WP:COIN. Until such time as it's confirmed, please stop deflecting. Many editors edit in areas that they enjoy. As for me, I primarily edit software testing and development articles, Christian music articles, Soccer articles, and Canada-themed articles. Do I have a CoI with any of those? You edit California-themed articles. Do you have a CoI with California? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "First, only relying on positive reviews from Christian magazines or websites that are going to be slanted toward the positivist is exactly that. I don't see any neutral review to balance out the positive ones." – Adamant1
 * This is a common area of confusion for editors. The fact is, that if all (and I do mean absolutely 100% of the reviews that we can find) the reviews are positive, or all the reviews are from "slanted" sources, then a neutral article...well, it still reflects what the sources say, and nothing else.  It doesn't matter whether the subject is a charity or a music album or a railway station or teaching children to read.  Universally enthusiastic sources need to result in a glowing Wikipedia article.  All the sources you can find about literacy are in favor of it?  Then the Wikipedia article should be, too.  All the sources you can find about this album liked it?  Then the Wikipedia article should say that.  That's the meaning of the definition of neutrality in NPOV's ==Explanation== section:  "neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias."  So:  we analyzed a variety of reliable sources, and they were all enthusiastic, right?  Then the job of this article is to attempt to convey to the reader the content of those enthusiastic sources, "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias."  "Fairly" means not reading a pile of enthusiastic reviews and representing them as having a tepid reaction.  "Proportionately" means that if 100% of the reviews are enthusiastic, then 100% of our content about the reviews should mirror their enthusiasm.  "Without editorial bias" means that you don't get to water down their enthusiasm just because you think a non-Christian source would have complained about something.
 * NPOV can be uncomfortable for editors when their personal views differ from the views of reliable sources. See, e.g., alternative medicine enthusiasts when NPOV requires them to say that there's no scientific evidence that it works, and skeptical editors when NPOV requires them to note that a whole lot of people use altmed.  See, indeed, atheists and apatheists when NPOV requires them to add something positive about a religions thing, and religiously minded editors when NPOV requires them to add something critical of their beliefs.
 * The bottom line: We have to work with the sources that exist.  Your complaint that the reviews are all from Christian sources doesn't matter any more than if a jazz album were only reviewed in jazz magazines or a wine were reviewed only in wine magazines – both of which happen regularly, with nobody saying that the jazz reviews are biased because a rock magazine might have a different take, if it had cared to review it, which it didn't.  (It could matter for notability, except that albums basically never get deleted, so that has no practical effect.)  If you can't find any sources that hold another POV about the album, then this article is already neutral, and you should leave it alone.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Walter, Your right about that, because they are generally extremely bias in general due to being owned by people that go churches, run them, are all friends, and therefore benefit from the record sales the positive reviews provide. A lot of them also don't have credibility outside of Christian circles. For good reason. Much like the self-help sector (see Tony Robbins/Oprah Winfrey/NLP type stuff) The fact that a certain industry has slant toward the positive doesn't then mean that articles about things having to do with that industry shouldn't be neutral. Id apply to the same rule to anything on here, if it was a positive or negative slant. Talking in the general though and making it about "christian review sites" is a good way to deflect from the good or bad aspects of the pages. Its a nice way to justify complacency. "well there's no point in changing anything. That's just how it is, "shrug."
 * Its large and hard to read for me. I'm not trying to read other articles. So I don't care how they are written. There's plenty of badly written ones out there we could compare it to. It makes a nice what aboutism, but that's about it. Also, 75% of it is quotes and Wikipedia has specific rules about not over using quotes. In fact, it says to use them extremely sparingly and not unless they are necessary.
 * As far as Kuda188 goes, it was only a small part of my rational. I know it gives you something to nitpick though instead of addressing the actual articles and the real issues with them. So I'll indulge you this once and address it. 1. I'm not the only person that has concerns about Kuda188. He routinely gets called out for it. Then stops editing for a while until it dies down. As I've told you before, its not a matter of him "editing pages of subjects he enjoys" its a matter of him only editing or creating Bethel Music articles. Editing them all in exactly the same way (that isn't like someone who is just editing them because they are interested in them. Them being the only thing he posts about on his social media accounts. Him constantly getting Bethel Music album covers deleted for copyright infringement etc etc.
 * Using the example of my edits in California or your edits of things nothing like that. I don't edit only California articles, in the same way, or only post about California on my social media accounts. Plus, California isn't a product and there's zero way I would have a conflict of interest with California. The same goes for the things you edit I assume. Nice what aboutism though. Its laughable how obviously ridiculous, deflective, and lacking in actual evidence your arguments are. As I said before Kuda188 had multiple chances with me and other users to just say there was no conflict of interest. He choose not to. That's on him. He's perfectly capable of defending himself. But he won't. I don't know why your doing it in his absence. Ultimately though there's no way to 100% know if he really has a conflict of interest. All I can do is look at the evidence, which there is a lot more of then you have evidence to the fact that he doesn't have one. Also, its my prerogative if I want to use the evidence as one thing many that helps me decide if I want to edit an article. Its not your place to tell me how I should decide what should be edited.
 * All that was stuff I've repeatedly told you. You just keep rehashing the same old arguments I've already shown were false etc. You continue to play dumb about it and talk in circles. Its a pretty common stalling tactic. In your next reply though id appreciate it if you got back to the subject of the article/articles instead (That's a request for staying on subject. Not an order like you keep giving me), with constructive ideas/feedback. Otherwise, I'm just going to ignore you, edit the articles how I see fit, and report you for edit warring if you revert me (I still plan to report you for the harassment when I get the time). I'm not playing your endless deflection game in the meantime.
 * WhatamIdoing, thanks for the response. I'll respond to your points later --Adamant1 (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing, maybe in the mean time you could read the puffery section on the Manual of Style Words to watch page and tell me your opinion on it. To there's a big difference between "positive" as in positive and positive as in puffery. I consider a lot of the Bethel Music articles I would consider overly positive I.E. puffery. There's nothing that says quotes from music reviews should be exempt from that. Maybe you would disagree. That's fine. Also, this is as much about Walter not letting me make any edits to these pages in the first place. Not just ones related to POV or tone. So that's only one issue I have out of many --Adamant1 (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks like WP:PUFFERY itself disagrees that it applies to quotations from reviews. The first sentence of that section in WTW begins "Words such as these are often used without attribution..."  Quoting a review with attribution is not puffery, according to WP:PUFFERY.  That section even gives a glowing quotation from a review as an example of what editors should do.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I pinged you incorrectly above. You might have some input here. Sorry; the discussion is much longer now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , Yes beetsra said to find better links if they can be found, but two other people told me differently in another conversation. There's no reason I should go with his or your advice over the other two people.
 * Notice it says "Words such as these are often used without attribution," not always. Also, the example of the quote without puffy is just that. An example. It doesn't mean all quotes are without puffy or POV issues though. Otherwise, there would be no point in having the rules about those things because people could just get around them and be as bias as they want by making the article all quotes. So it doesn't make sense otherwise. There is that whole thing about using quotes sparingly, but I'm sure there would be some reason that rule doesn't apply either. Either way, you only need to look at other articles about Christian artists outside of Bethel Music ones to see that they are much better written and don't have the issues these ones do. So its pretty disingenuous to say these articles are the best they can be, that nothing can improved about them, or that its just how Christian music articles are. As Walter continues to do. A lot of these things he reverts people for are things he's perfectly fine doing himself in other circumstances. Like how he asked Steffany Gretzinger not to link to social media announcements of child births, but then he gave me a bunch of crap bringing it up and said it was perfectly fine. There's plenty of examples of similar things he's done. Shady behavior aside, Ultimately I don't think these things are as cut and dry as you guys make it out to be. Know one would edit Wikipedia if they had to jump through a bunch of hoops, harassment, and multiple arbitration committees just to make basic edits to an article like Walter treats it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Im generally of the mindset that, if you’ve got the time for extended arguments on tags like this, then you’ve probably got the time to rework the content that supposedly needs fixing. Tags aren’t meant to hang at the top of an article indefinitely like a badge of shame. Looking it over, the prose is very positive...but looking at the review table, it’s bounds to be that way when the reviews are pretty positive. If you think it’s too positive, find some less glowing reviews, or recut some of the prose and direct quotes currently present. It is a bit heavy on the direct quotes. (Full disclosure - I just came from the WikiProject alert. I’m active in writing about music, but have not heard of this artist or album before.) Sergecross73   msg me  23:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sergecross73, thanks for your input, I agree with you that it is heavy on the direct quotes. Your suggestions would probably help with it to some degree. Unfortunately though, Walter Gorlitz disagrees and has reverted any attempts to remedy the situation. Hence why I added the banner in the first place, in order to bring in other opinions. Hopefully if enough people disagree with him he will listen to reason and not revert valid changes anymore. Id like to see the templates removed as much as the next person, on a few related pages they have been there for a few years, but not until the articles are actually improved. I guess them being there much longer then they need to be is the cost of having people like Walter around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you show any diffs that support your claims? The first is that two other editors told you to do something that several other editors have told you not to. The second is that I have "reverted any attempts to remedy the situation". You have not attempted to remove quotes, but you have attempted to remove entire sources. Those are two different issues. Very different issues. I do listen to reason, you read into responses left by others things that support your opinion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I'm good. First, it was like a year ago and I'm not digging through a years worth of diffs to find them. Second, I have reason to lie about it and I don't need your permission to make edits. So there's really no reason to. I've provided enough evidence to back myself up already. Also, I didn't read over every message when Beetstra said to replace the links instead of delete them and I'm mostly taking your work on it. You might be massively disingenuous about a lot of things, but I don't you would lie. You could show me the same respect.
 * recently I removed some sources for reasons I think are valid, but also rewrote/cleaned up some things in the past that you reverted. Plus, you said above that the quotes are fine and don't need to be changed or anything. Which is the whole point in this discussion. Giving that you disagree with the premise that the quotes are a little over done, there's no reason to think you wouldn't just revert any attempts to change them. Since that's what you have done in literally every other circumstance where you thought things were fine, quotes or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * About seven or eight months ago I spent like 5 hours re-writing the Brain Johnson article (I think it was that one). Then reverted the whole thing, like 8 edits, because I made a minor mistake in the last change-set. You could have just reverted the last problematic changeset, but you decided to use it as an excuse to revert even the legitimate stuff. Your reason for doing it was really lame to, it was like "the article was fine already." That's just one example. I wouldn't blame you if you don't remember it. You do a lot of reverting. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So just to reiterate, you have a bad track record of interpreting the advice provided to you by others as is evident from what I shown here. I assume that you meant to write that you have no reason to lie about it, but that wasn't the point. The point is that you have a bad track record of interpreting the advice provided to you by others and I was hoping to invite those editors to comment here again to determine if your interpretation of what they wrote is or is not accurate. Lying is intentional and requires a certain level of maliciousness. I don't think you're malicious, I just don't think you are able to correctly interpret what other editors are trying to tell you. While it's true that you don't need my permission, I'm not trying offer it. You've provided no evidence to support the NPOV template I'm going to remove it now as you've had two other editors request that you show reviews that are not glowing.
 * If I reverted your change it wasn't for a minor issue, it was because you messed. Again, show me the diff and you'll see. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What are you on about exactly? Its all well and good to say I don't need your permission to edit pages, but its proven out by the evidence of you reverting every edit I have made, because you don't approve of them. So that's exactly how your acting. Also, two people and a few messages is hardly consensus or a discussion of the issue. Not to mention WhatamIdoing didn't even have a chance to respond to my thing about how POV isn't side stepped by quotes. Plus, me and the other person said the quotes could use cleanup. So that's two against it, which whatamIdoing didn't even give a definitive answer on his position. Consider that I am restoring it. As it seems like removing it was a lame attempt to shout down the conversation when it clearly wasn't in your favor. Otherwise, what's the hurry? Also, what suddenly makes it your call to remove it suddenly over anyone else? Once again, you don't own the pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have not reverted every edit you've made, only the problematic ones. I didn't revert most of them here, and I only reverted the last one you made here after a long discussion where multiple editors told you the same thing: the PoV template on the article was inappropriately placed.
 * I removed the quotes entirely because they were unnecessary.
 * You have no grounds to restore the PoV template so I removed it yet again. If you provide even one review of the article that says something against the reviews, then you're fine to add it back. That was unanimous. Once again, you don't own the pages and templates are not badges of shame. Take it to a larger audience if you disagree, which is what I did. You could get a third opinion (if you don't like the three that were already telling you that you need a review or opinion that says the positive reviews are not neutral). You could take it request for comment on whether the template should be restored, but do not go against consensus just because you don't like it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * BS, they were only problematic to you and you've considered every one problematic. Otherwise, show me an edit on these pages by me that you haven't reverted. I told you my grounds. The conversation wasn't over, a consesous wasn't reached, and its not your sole decision to make as to when it gets removed. You don't own the pages. It didn't have anything to do with "finding better reviews" it had to do with making the current ones more neutral and cutting down on the quotes. As both me and SergeCross76 have said. To qoute SegreCross76 directly "If you think it’s too positive, find some less glowing reviews, or recut some of the prose and direct quotes currently present. It is a bit heavy on the direct quotes. In know way is that either a consensus on your side, anyone saying the PoV template was inappropriate, or that the only solution is just to replace the citations with other ones as you keep falsely asserting. Nothing was unanimous. WhatamIdoing didn't even say anything your claiming. Your just making things up in a desperate attempt to justify your revert warring and controlling the pages. Otherwise, you'd just let leave the template alone. Or show some proof to back up that SergeCross76 said you claim he did. I don't need to take to a larger audience either. The one you took it to already disagreed with you twice. You'll just deny it the third time if I do. It won't do any good because your just ignore it like you've done with everything else you disagree with. Your clearly the one going against consensus because you don't like it. If you could even claim there was consensus in a conversation that was still going on where know one had finalized anything. Once again, except for SergeCross76 who disagreed with you. I'll remind of you of the revert rules in Wikipedia:edit warring. "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit warring An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense Your clearly edit warring by repeatedly reverting this and other pages to how you want them. The edits aren't vandalism. I've cited plenty of guidelines to support them. They are only problematic in your own mind. Even if you were right, which your not, it clearly says its edit warring if you restore the pages to how you want them regardless if its justifiable. So your clearly abusing twinkle and the revert rules for your own agenda. Considering all that, I'm restoring the POV banner. Otherwise, if your going to remove show some proof that everyone said the template was inappropriate and do it before you remove it. Know where does the guidelines for removal say it can just be removed by the whim of one person. Otherwise, provide some evidence.
 * Also, I'll ask again, if POV/puffery/neutrality/ etc doesn't apply to quotes and the whole thing about using quotes sparingly in articles doesn't apply either, what's to stop someone from just creating a completely bias article full of quotes and circumventing the rules? What situations would those rules apply to then? My guess is you'd say to any other situations except the ones here. Also, id mention that the whole "critical reception" section isn't even present on a lot of other much better written Christian music articles. They don't have a bunch of iTunes or Amazon links either. No one is having a conniption about it there or crying foul like your are either. So your whole claim that your edit warring is justified, since my edits to the critical reception section or anywhere else are vandalism, is clearly BS. You obviously have serious issues. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you read what the other editors wrote? I'll state it clearly, but I would like you summarize it to show you understand. What stops someone from just creating a completely biased article full of quotes is the rules: WP:RS. WP:NPOV states that we add balance to an article by supplying all of the views presented by reliable sources. In some cases, we summarize the views if there are multiple sources on each side. In the case of this article, and most music articles, is that the sources speak only in positive terms about the subject. When that happens, we speak only in positive terms about the subject. We have no other source. It's why we have asked to show which sources make negative claims about the subject. In this case, we have no opposing views, so the article is positive toward it. If you have RSes to the contrary, WP:BALANCE states that we include it so that a positive nature is not presented in an WP:UNDUE manner. I can't find any, and I did look. You haven't presented any so the article's positive slant on the album is entirely justified by the reviews. Whether you like the reviews is immaterial. If they are not RSes (based on a review at WP:RSN), then they should be removed and we reflect the album in the article with the references that remain. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I know you're watching this page, but I'm going to make this clear: stop adding the POV template. You have at least three editors telling you not to and none telling you that you should. Try to change consensus or supply references to state that the provided positive reviews are wrong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

You were referenced in the edit summary claiming something about the lack of PoV here. I haven't seen you on here. Do you have an opinion to share? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There us no such user. Care to get the name right? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , it appears you think that there is reason to supply the template to the article according to Adamant1's edit summary, although I don't see that from you here. I see that you wrote, "Looking it over, the prose is very positive...but looking at the review table, it’s bounds to be that way when the reviews are pretty positive", but and that there were too many extended quotes (which have been removed). Does the article merit a POV template? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My bad. I thought I had copied it. What quotes were removed? It still looks the same to me. The critical reception section is still full of them. Also, shouldn't you wait to see if he thinks the template removed before you remove it? Otherwise, what's the point in asking in the first place? Also, it shouldn't be removed until WhatamIdoinghere answers the question about if POV/puffery/etc doesn't apply to quotes based on what the guideline says or you should provide some evidence to how it doesn't. Since that was original thing that prompted the POV template in the first place. If POV issues/Puffery/etc do apply to quotes, then it shouldn't be removed until the quotes are free of them. The guideline about puffery is pretty clear in my opinion that it applies to qoutes in my opinion and nothing in it says otherwise. Or provide some evidence. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=After_All_These_Years_(Brian_%26_Jenn_Johnson_album)&diff=872775089&oldid=872256664
 * I removed both block quotes. One was completely removed. The second was removed. I left the other short quotes in the background section and the quotes in the reception section.
 * Are any of the remaining quotes problematic? Are there too many? How would you suggest distilling their contents? How would you suggest addressing each individual quote.
 * In other words, we're past the ability for you to make vague comments about the article and address specific concerns. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally, id totally get rid the critical reception section. Since its not used on a lot of other better written articles. I know you wouldn't go for that though. So my next suggestion would be that the quotes should be rewritten to prose. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice, "The bulk of the information should be in prose format." further, "add prose describing the reviews to a "Reception" section and link the reviews in citations." I think those are solid suggestions which other album articles follow and are better for doing so. More prose would improve things a lot though. Also, getting rid of the redundant/unnecessary internal links would make it a lot easier to read. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article." Also, in the what generally should not be linked section "The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar." Which includes common occupations. So links like "worship pastors." It also says everyday words understood by most readers in context shouldn't be included. So there's no point in linking to the "Christian albums" or "Christian radio" pages. Since everyone reading the article probably understand what those things are. Outside of all that, I'll have to think about it and get back to you. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Btw, there's also this nugget on neutrality of reviews "Include no more than ten reviews in table form. When choosing which reviews to include, consider the notability of the review source and keeping a neutral point of view" which clearly isn't "go with whatever" or to quote you "quoting positive reviews isn't a PoV issue for a band." --Adamant1 (talk) 08:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I was not in support of adding the tag. I was in support of Adamant to fix it himself through finding some less positive reviews or tweaking what’s already there. That said, the suggestion to “remove the reception section altogether” shows a deeply poor understanding of how Wikipedia works and how to write an article, so quite frankly I’m no longer confident that would be a good idea either. If Adamant thinks that’s a proper approach, they probably aren’t the right person to be adding improvement tags to an article at all. Sergecross73   msg me  11:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I never said removing the critical reception altogether was a good idea or even something I would be for doing. I simply making the point that its not in a lot of other articles for music artists that are still perfectly fine articles. So its ridiculous for Walter to revert even minor edits to it. If removing it was something I was for, I would have just done it. Thanks for putting words in my mouth and assuming things though. Aside from that, if you think the article should could be written better, it should be based on how the article is written. Not on a comment someone makes in a talk page. So go ahead and walk your statement based on my comment, but it doesn't change the nature of the article any, the guidelines about style, or the fact that it can be improved.
 * Also, I never said I would be the one ultimately making the changes anyway (not to say I wouldn't be though). Plus, even if I was one to edit it, one bad edit in a bunch of good ones doesn't automatically make the good ones null and void. For instance, I don't discount all feedback or reverts from Walter just because he made some bad calls. That would be a stupid way to act and would at my/the articles determent. Plus, its a discussion.That's what people do in them, make suggestions. They are just that, suggestions. Someone could suggest the whole article be deleted, its pretty meaningless unless they don't act on it though. Having some bad suggestions is a natural part of the brainstorming process though. I still ultimately don't need Walter or anyone else's permission to edit the page. So I'm having this conversation out of goodwill in the first place. Its not a Phd dissertation and I don't expect anyone else to live up to that standard, suggestions, edits, or whatever. I probably have a lot more integrity then a lot of other editors though ( Just to be clear, I'm not saying that in relation to anyway one here). --Adamant1 (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The accusation of putting words in your mouth is absolutely baffling. You literally wrote Personally, id totally get rid the critical reception section. You very clearly said it directly yourself. Now please, enough bickering. As they say - “put up or shut up”. Fix it yourself or drop the issue. Stop dragging this out with all these other tangents. Sergecross73   msg me  23:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You must be easily baffled. I think the example of what I said that you cited proves my point. I said "id totally." In no way is that a suggestion. Its called being facetious. To use a slightly crude example, there's a big difference between saying "I'd totally hit that," versus saying "I'm going to hit that," or suggesting someone else "hit that" when an attractive woman walks by. The first one is clearly sarcastic trolling and not meant to be taken literally. Which is how I meant what I said.
 * Further, don't tell boss me around. I'm not obligated to either edit the page within a certain timeline or "shut up." Just like your not obligated to contribute to the conversation if you find it trite. You could have just easily "pissed off" as they say, instead of contributing in the first place. I also wasn't the one that ping you to come back and elaborate on something that was pretty clear the first time and I wish you hadn't. So don't miss place the blame on me for your time being badly spent.
 * While I might have been the one to put up the banner, I wasn't the one that initiated this. Walter did by reverting me many times and insisting I do RfCs and get second opinions on things that were clearly acceptable to do in the first place. So its not like I wanted to go through this dumb, useless process. I would of preferred it not happen to start with. I couldn't "Fix it myself or drop the issue" though until Walter was so totally proven in the wrong, or had his ego stroked enough about how right he was by other editors, for him to back off. Since apparently his editing skills and knowledge of the rules are so great that he's the only one that decide how pages are edited, or something. So, its not on me, except maybe the "tangents" whatever that means, but there's no limit on message length and I was trying to be clear on things so it wouldn't be turned around, taken out of context, and thrown in my face later. Which it was and always is anyways. So, whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * He's not easily baffled. I assumed that's what you meant, but clearly it's not. You should learn to communicate better.
 * And speaking for communicating better, I'm sorry for deleting the suggestions you left on my talk page for improving this article. They looked fine, but you shoudl really be discussing these things with the group.
 * And I don't think that he was bossing you around either. You were the one who had a clear problem with the PoV on the article. No other editors did, and you were unable to convince us. So a WP:CONSENSUS exists that there's no need for the tag. Of course, you're free to make your point by taking only the negative parts of any review you find and adding that to the reception section.
 * In short, it is on you. Tangents are talking about other editors who think may have some association with group or church or label or whatever rather than fixing the article. Nothing has been taken out of context as far as I can read. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, he's easily baffled because he was by what I said when it was pretty clear. As far as communicating better, I prefer to judge people by the truthfulness of their message. Instead of discounting what they say because they make a spelling mistake or go on a tangent. Unlike some other people here. As I said, its about having integrity. No need to apologize about removing my suggestion from your talk page, I know you prefer to discuss everything anywhere besides your talk page where criticism or feedback might reflect badly on you later. I didn't need to discuss it with the group. They already agreed with me about how the quotes could be better. Your the one that has continued to have the problem. Hence why it was on your page.
 * Notice I don't remove comments from my take page. I don't care about other people's perceptions. I know I'm ultimately in the right. At least your finally able to admit to suggestions are valid. Although, I'm sure you won't take the extra step of apologizing of for all the pointless reverts and the fact that all this wouldn't have gone on in the first place if you hadn't of falsely accused me of stuff and tried to act superior. If you hadn't of reverted everything I did or went off of crap about getting other peoples opinions even after other people disagreed with you multiple times, none of this would have been an issue in the first place and I would have already made the changes a few years ago before you started screwing with me. I know you won't take responsibility for your actions though. At least I'm willing to say I go on tangents. I just disagree it has anything to do with the quality of the pages.
 * I'm also fine with saying the POV banner can be removed. Now that it has actually been discussed. Especially since the same things will be changed regardless of it being there or not. It was just put there in the first to get outside opinions and prove you wrong. Which it did pretty well in my opinion. If ultimately you piss off and I can improve the quotes to better represent the actual opinions of the reviews, that's a win for me. Its all I wanted to do in the first place. You can play the a semantics game about how its not a "POV" issue or whatever. The outcome is the same. One of the major I have you though is that you attack people for asking for help in the first place. I had every right to put the POV template up in the first place if I thought the article had a POV issue. If it turned out it didn't in the end, no big deal. That doesn't discount asking for an outside opinion in the first place though. Especially since you said to in the first place. You always move the yard stick though. First, its there is no rule, then its that there is one, but it doesn't apply in this situation, then it does except not because I "miss represented my question" and everyone that agreed with me just didn't know what they where agreeing to, now its fine to edit the pages, but your right anyway because I said I think Kuda188 has a conflict of interest.
 * Ultimately its down to your attitude for two years and repeatedly reverting me for the same thing your telling me I should just shout up and do. So now that I have permission I should I just shout up and do it? Right...That's the prefect epitome of bossing me around, your general mentality, and why this was an issue in the first place. Have fun rumbling about how I said something Kuda188 you didn't like. That's all you have at this point. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please. Stop being facetious, sarcastic, or doing any other sort of means of indirect communication. Its not helpful. Comment on content, not editors. Make short, concise comments about specific changes to be made. If you havent noticed, long rambling posts that go on many tangents and take cheap shots at each other aren’t conducive to constructive discussion - youve now wasted days on this with no progress made. I’ve giving you a last chance to handle this as adults before I start considering blocking editors or locking pages. This is the last time I’m instructing on this. Time to change how you’re conducting yourself. Sergecross73   msg me  13:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)