User talk:BestDJofAllTime

Hi! I'm the BestDJofAllTime, and this is my Wikipedia page! I'm a former music reviewer at Jesusfreakhideout who now works as a freelance music journalist. I know how to write a great article/review, and from an unbiased point of view as well!

Welcome BestDJofAllTime! Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 41,266,612 registered editors!

Hello BestDJofAllTime. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm Walter Görlitz, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge. Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type  here on your talk page and someone will try to help. To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Mypage/sandbox&action=edit&preload=Template:User_Sandbox/preload create your own personal sandbox] for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put  on your userpage.

Please remember to: The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the OOUI JS signature icon LTR.png button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes  at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
 * Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.

 Sincerely, Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)   [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Walter_G%C3%B6rlitz&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Welcome_to_Wikipedia/user-talk_preload (Leave me a message)]

Español

Deutsch

Français

Italiano

עברית

Русский

日本語

Polski

فارسی

Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I was just wondering why you reverted my edit on the page for the album "This Is Not The End" by Canadian artist Manafest. As somebody who is a HUGE fan of the artist and owns most of his albums- including the album for the page I edited- I don't see why adding in the genre to the album was reverted- since that was never included on that page before. I know what genres that album is, since I own it. I don't see why adding in something that wasn't there before- which is perfectly fine to add- was reverted at all. There was no reason to revert it at all. Please tell me why you reverted it for no reason, because it shouldn't have been reverted. Adding in something that was missing does not and should not count as something that wasn't okay to do. By not including the genre of the album, it can make it confusing to people who wish to purchase it. There should be no issues with adding in something like that, which is why I'm confused as to why you made the revert. Also, how am I supposed to "explain" what the genres are, and why would something like that not be "supported"? I would appreciate your input on this! Thanks!

BestDJofAllTime (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Genres and sourcing
Please read the welcome. You'll find that additions need to be reliably sourced. This includes additions of genres. See WP:GWAR for more details. I linked to the latter when I reverted your additions of the genres. You'll also learn by reading that genre warrior article that just because you think you know the genres, does not mean that you are trained or a reliable source yourself. You'll usually find explicit genres in reviews by professional reviewers. In this case, Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources have lists of acceptable sources, but there may be others. Hope you find some, as there have not been any reliably sourced yet. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I DO know the genres! Like I already told you, I'm a diehard fan of the artist myself, and every album he's made are all the same genres for the most part- barring his older albums anyway- which were strictly hip hop based with not a lot of rock. Also, I AM a reliable source, because I'm a reviewer myself, and I can assure you that none of the examples you used as "sources" are even remotely reliable! I'd know that better than anyone- that's why I work as a freelancer! I started working as a freelancer because I learned that a lot of so-called "reviewers" actually know nothing about what they're supposed to be "reviewing", and so you can't take a word of what they say seriously! I aimed to fix that usual issue, so I did! I work as a freelance reviewer- though I prefer to not use that term because of the fact that UNLIKE every other review out there, I actually know my stuff, which makes me the most reliable person for this sort of thing! In other words- I'm the best at what I do! For the context of this specific instance, however, I will refer to myself as a "reviewer" just to appease you! That's why I will also say that since every single recent album of the artist is of the same genre, and in your view, there would be "sources" that say that those albums are those genres, and so the fact that there isn't one that says the same for that album (also in your view) is entirely irrelevant as well as pointless! Those same "sources" for the other albums can apply to every album that the artist has made, so it doesn't matter whatsoever! I also go by the fact that the artist himself- Manafest- has confirmed what genres his albums are, and since he's the guy who made the albums, he's the best person to use as a truly reliable source! I've even interviewed Chris (Manafest's real name) about it, so I'd know that better than most other people would! No other source besides myself and Manafest himself are even remotely reliable or acceptable! Just thought you should know the facts, since I am strictly a facts-based person, and because of that, I don't go by pointless BS and all that other crap! It's why I started working as a freelancer to begin with, because I knew I could do things better than the imbeciles who claim that they're "reviewers" when in reality they couldn't review anything properly even if their life depending on it! I also don't appreciate atheists removing stuff just because it goes against what they believe! That's not right! I mean, how would YOU feel if I were to do the same thing on one of your atheist pages? You'd be pissed off too, right? Of course you would! It's only a natural human reaction! Of course- I know better than to do something like that, so I was just using it as an example, but the point still remains regardless! BestDJofAllTime (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are not considered an expert. Find a source from one that is considered to be one. Please read the links to reliable sources and the genre warring pages. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

What a crock of crap! I'm more of an expert than anyone else is, yet due to your massive ego, you're refusing to admit it! I even included a review from a review site that was not only entirely "reliable" (in your view}, but one that was already used in the references section, meaning that that one was entirely, 100% allowed, yet due to your atheistic ego, you removed it out of spite and hatred for me! You're also ignoring the fact that the artist himself has said what his own genres are, and since I've interviewed him about it, that's also a reason to add in the genres, because the best person who would know what the genres are is the guy who makes the damn music to begin with! Manafest himself is the most reliable source there is- even more so than I am! Why are you not taking his words seriously, when he's easily the most reliable source of them all? That makes no sense whatsoever, so it's about high time you stopped doing that and listed to the people who are actually reliable in this information! Your own bias due to your lack of religious beliefs goes 100% against the whole "unbiased point of view" that Wikipedia users are supposed to have! Grow up, and get a life! Quit removing my 100% reliable information! BestDJofAllTime (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You are not expert in genres.
 * The prose (written content) of the Jesus Freak Hideout article does not make any claims for the three genres you are adding.
 * If you decide to add unsourced genres again, I will take it to the community to decide how to proceed. If you decide to take up a discussion on the article's talk page, or at the GWAR page, you may learn how to work cooperatively on the project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

That article said the genres within it! To say that it didn't make any claims as to the genres when they were there in plain sight is a damn lie and you know it! Also, you're making up lies about me when you know nothing about me! I AM an expert in this, because I am a reviewer myself! What don't you get about that? I've even interviewed the artist myself, and as I already stated, the artist himself is easily the most reliable source of them all! Again, I don't appreciate you reverting my edits just because you're an athieistic asshat with an superiority complex! You're also NOT going to take it up with the community, because they don't listen to a damn thing! I should know that better than anyone, as I've dealt with those idiots a billion times myself already! They don't listen, nor do they care! Getting those asshats involved isn't necessary whatsoever! We can settle this out on our own! BestDJofAllTime (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There are two sections to the article: the summary and the review. The review itself, the prose of the review, does not discuss it and that is the only reliable part. I am not making up lies about you, I am trying to explain how Wikipedia works to you. While you may be a DJ, your expertise is not recognized on Wikipedia. If you would like to be recognized, go to WP:RSN and provide your reviews for analysis by the community. If they agree that you're an expert, we can use your reviews and un-sourced opinions. If not, we can't.
 * I don't appreciate a novice trying to insert unsourced and incorrectly added genres to an article.
 * I have taken the first steps in taking it up with the community. You should have been notified when I linked to your user account. The next step would be a discussion of your behaviour with the admins. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm NOT a novice, dumbass! I've been around the block more times than you'll ever know! I've been on Wikipedia for years- longer than you've ever been! Also, that review I used as a reference? I know the person who wrote that! That was one of my former coworker's articles that they wrote! I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE GENRES WERE LISTED IN THERE, BECAUSE I WAS THERE WHEN THEY WROTE THE ARTICLE! SO, YOU CAN'T CALL ME UNRELIABLE, WHEN I'VE WRITTEN MORE RELIABLE ARTICLES THAN YOU EVER WILL IN YOUR ENTIRE LIFE! BestDJofAllTime (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry to imply that you were a novice or a dumbass. You don't know what you're doing on Wikipedia. Reliability is a detailed concept, and per Wikipedia guidelines, you are not a reliable source until it's been agreed on. Until you are considered to be a recognized expert for genres on Wikipedia, you will need to provide reliable sources a written by recognized experts. If you want me to help you with the process of "certifying" your expertise, please let me know, but you'll have to rely on the writers and reviewers at Rolling Stone, Spin, Billboard and even Jesus Freak Hideout until your credentials are accepted by the project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * One more thing, you might want to check out the content that I edit and ask yourself why I was able to see the change you made to the album so quickly. If you want me to explain it to you, I'd be happy to open a discussion, assuming that the name-calling will be absent during the discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

As I already stated, those so-called "reviewers" at sites such as "Rolling Stone", "Spin", "Billboard", and even "Jesus Freak Hideout" are all idiots who couldn't write a proper review even if their lives depended on it! Since I am NOT that type of reviewer, I left to work as a freelancer, since I knew I'd do things better! By your flawed logic that believes that those review sites are actually reliable, since I'm somebody who used to work for Jesusfreakhideout, I should be considered reliable, but instead, you're calling me unreliable solely out of your own spite and hatred of me! Do you know just how asinine that is? I assume not! I know full well that reliability is a detailed concept- it's why I quit working for site that was unreliable in the first place! You're also completely ignoring the fact that when I worked for Jesusfreakhideout, I actually interviewed Manafest myself, and he told me what his genre is! He's more reliable than even I am! Also, considering that pretty much every single album Manafest has made is all of the same or at least very similar genres, the fact that that one review doesn't specifically say a genre in your mind (even though it 100% does), the fact that they're all the same genre and you'd have other reviews for other albums that say the genres there should be enough to prove my point as to just how flawed your logic is, as those reviews pretty much state the genres for ALL of his albums! You do realize just how stupid that logic of yours is? It's precisely due to people like you that caused me to become a freelance music journalist in the first place, because I have no interest in working with stupid people with horribly flawed logic like that! I don't have flawed logic like that, which is why I'm the best reviewer out there! You're also wrong in the fact that UNLIKE what you think, I actually DO know what I'm doing on Wikipedia! Just because you're all riding the dicks of corporate asshats who don't have a clue as to what makes a good encyclopedia does NOT mean that you or they know what they're doing! I was born with an encyclopedic brain, so I'm MUCH better at this sort of thing than they are! I mean, for you to ignore what Manafest himself has said when he's the most reliable source of all is really saying something! Also, I'm baffled as to how an atheist like yourself even knows what Matthew 5:22 even IS- let alone what it says! You're just full of surprises, aren't you? BestDJofAllTime (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

You wanted me to explain how I'm right, correct? Well, here's why! The reason I'm right is due to the fact that UNLIKE you- I actually have a degree in music journalism, and not only that, I'm also in expert in all things music and encyclopedias! My all-knowing encyclopedic brain knows EXACTLY how to handle encyclopedia content like Wikipedia, and that's why I know the differences between reliable information- which is what I'm giving you- and unreliable information- which is the typical lies that you're believing! I know what's best for encyclopedic websites, and while my ways may be different than what you're used to, or even entirely obtuse to anyone with a feeble brain, I can assure you that they are MUCH better than the ways that you're used to! Believe me- I've been known as "Encyclopedia boy/man" my entire life, so my way of doing things is FAR better! Since I aim to make Wikipedia the best encyclopedia it can possibly be, it's about time you started taking a master's word for it (in this case, me) and stopped with the stupid, boring ways of old, because with how many people who believe that Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source, it's time we all changed that! Anyone who isn't in favor of that can leave and never return, because if they're seriously THAT arrogant and egotistical, then what's the point in them being here? The way I've done things for years is all with the sole intention of making Wikipedia the best online encyclopedia website out there, and there's NOTHING wrong with that! In fact, you should be thanking me for that, but I doubt that you will! Either way, you still need to start taking constructive criticism from me better, which includes NOT getting butthurt over every little thing I do or say and falsely accusing me of calling you names when I'm not. I'm for you- no against you, so unless you have zero intention whatsoever of agreeing with me, we should have no issues working together to make Wikipedia the best place it can be! Do you understand what I'm getting at? I certainly hope that you do! If so, then the lessons can begin ASAP! BestDJofAllTime (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Go make your case at WP:RSN. Do you understand what I'm getting at? I certainly hope do. I suspect that you're about to get a block, but not from me, and you will not be able to edit (at least for a while), but you'll have lots of time to read what we're writing. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Really? Having somebody blocked just because your feelings got hurt? What an idiot! Well, like I've told you before, I've been around the block countless times already, and I always- and I mean ALWAYS- find a way around it! You'll see! You can try to get rid of me, but you will NEVER succeed! Besides, you haven't even answered me back about why you're ignoring the artist's own words about what his genre of music is! That's what I'm making my edits based on, and there's nothing you can do to stop that, because Manafest himself is more reliable than even I am! I would know that better than anyone else- being his manager and all! Bet you didn't see THAT coming, now did you? Not only am I a freelance music journalist, I'm also the manager for Manafest! How do you like them onions? BestDJofAllTime (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. It's your words, actions and attitude that will get you blocked. If you take a look, I never said that I would get you blocked, and you're assuming it's because its my feelings that are hurt. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Your personal feelings about sources we consider reliable are irrelevant. We have a WP:CONSENSUS that they are usable, and unless you start a discussion at a public place like a Wikiproject that changes things where you persuade most editors to change their mind, that stance stands. We have a lot of policies and standards established and set up. You would probably make more progress if you took the time to learn why we've set up up the way we have before you attempt to upend it all. Sergecross73   msg me  01:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021
Hello. Some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to This Is Not the End (Manafest album), have conflicted with our neutral point of view and/or verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at This Is Not the End (Manafest album)‎‎. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Music genre and sourcing
Hello, I'm Serge, an admin here on Wikipedia. Please listen to Walter's instructions about finding third party, reliable sources to back up every time you add a music genre to a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia's stance on using reliable sources is non-negotiable - if you repeatedly add unsourced or poorly sourced content, your account may become blocked for increasingly long periods of time. If you need help on adding sources, read WP:REFB.

If you need examples of what sources of sources are acceptable or not acceptable, please see WP:RSMUSIC and WP:NOTRSMUSIC.

Thanks. Sergecross73  msg me  21:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

For one, I DID use a reliable source- a source from a person that I knew at one point myself I might add, and second- it was NOT unsourced or poorly sourced! You're taking the side of an idiot who CLEARLY knows nothing on this matter- ESPECIALLY when compared to an expert like me! I'm a music journalist who works as a freelance music reviewer! I know better than anyone else what the difference between a reliable source and an unreliable source is, so you need to stop treating me like I'm an idiot, when I'm obviously not! For somebody who talks about needing to have a neutral point of view, you really don't have that, as your taking the side of an idiot who knows nothing over somebody who's an expert in this matter, and who has written countless articles and has even interviewed the artist about what genre of music he makes! That's why I even listed what the genres are in my former co-worker's own review (the one that you have wrongfully claimed is unsourced/poorly sourced)! Unlike you or anyone else here, I'm an expert in this subject! I HIGHLY doubt you even went to the same highly-esteemed prestigious university that I went to in order to get my degree in music journalism, which means that you are unqualified to even debate this with me! I- on the other hand- am qualified! Unlike anyone else here, I actually have a degree! Despite what you may believe, I am NOT stupid, and I damn well know the proper way to discuss this sort of thing! If you'd honestly block somebody's account due to somebody's ego not allowing them to tell the difference between a legitimately reliable source and one that is not, then you REALLY should rethink your life and not be an admin on Wikipedia! Let somebody who actually knows what they're talking about- like me- be an admin instead! Of course, I just used myself as an example, but the point still stands! If I was in your situation, I wouldn't block somebody just based on that, and neither would anybody else who is like me! There's no reason whatsoever to block people for that sort of thing whatsoever- ESPECIALLY when you're unqualified to do so! BestDJofAllTime (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Look, really, there's no need for all of that. If you're following the rules, you'll stop get warnings and you'll be good to go. But you've got to stop with all this "I'm an expert music journalist" type stuff. We're all equals on Wikipedia. You're going to be treated the same whether you're a kid in high school or a music scholar. You aren't given any extra consideration just because you're a self-proclaimed expert. If you're going to be stuck on that, you may as well stop right now and go start your own blog or something. This is a collaborative project, and you're just another person here on Wikipedia, and you've got to follow protocol accordingly. Sergecross73   msg me  23:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * BestDJofAllTime still is not getting it as can be seen with this edit. Thanks for your help. Shall I escalate? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I can handle this. Sergecross73   msg me  01:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, there IS a need for all of this! You've got to see the bigger picture, and without my guidance- Wikipedia WILL fail! Make no mistake about that! For one, you're ignoring 100% reliable information that I received from the artist who made the music! You can't call that "unreliable", because if it's from the artist's own mouth, it's 100% legit! While Wikipedia IS a collaborative project, that only applies if the people running the show actually have a clue as to what they're doing. You do not, and neither does anyone else here excluding myself! All my life, I've dreamed of having my own encyclopedia, and now I have that! That's why if we collaborate- together- we can turn this into the greatest thing out there! There's no "I" in team after all! However, we're going to have to start by getting rid of the outdated ways of doing things and improving it drastically! Changing things around isn't as big of a deal as you think, I promise! Now, let's get it done! ALL of us, because even I can't do it alone! BestDJofAllTime (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You may think you're "legit", but you have no credentials. I'm not trying to tell you what I think, I'm telling you what all of Wikipedia has decided. Oh, and now you're in an edit war on that article, and that will get you blocked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

You've already escalated things to the point on no return, and now you want to escalate them more? What's wrong with you? You've been pushing my buttons for FAR too long! I run the show here- NOT you! Why are you ignoring what the artist himself has said in regards to his genre of music? That's not the right way of doing things! Grow up! BestDJofAllTime (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're free to feel "Wikipedia will fail". But that does not give you authority to do whatever you want. There are ways to change Wikipedia. Arguing that "things are outdated" as you go is 100% not a valid approach. You need to change policy/guidelines first, and then implement. If I see you make another unsourced/poorly sourced edit, your account is blocked. So slow down and learn how things are done on this website. Sergecross73   msg me  01:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

For one, Wikipedia has been out of date for over 15 years, which means that it is 100% a valid approach! I've been here ever since then, so I'd know that better than anyone! Second, for the last time, my edits were NOT unsourced/poorly sourced. When you get the information straight from the artist's himself, that means it's straight from the source's mouth! Are you calling the artist himself a liar? Sure seems like it! Third, you can't block me, because as I've already said, I've been around the block countless times over the course of my 15+ years being on Wikipedia, so you can NEVER get rid of me! I'll ALWAYS find my way back! Lastly, for people who talk about reaching consensus all the time, you sure are bad at actually reaching it! I've already reached a consensus on my own, so why is everyone else so bad at it? Hmm? I expect to reach a consensus on either my own talk page or on the article's talk page, but with how biased everyone else is, here's hoping that some sense can be talked into them! Ignoring legitimate, reliable information just out of hatred and spite is NOT the proper way to do things! I mean, why else would I have gone from working at a website to working freelance? I don't work well with idiots, but I do work well with those who are actually able to have meaningful conversations with me and who understand my genius and why I do things the way I do! I WANT those people to succeed in life, so as long as they want the same for me, I am more than glad to work alongside them to achieve that goal! That way, I help others out while also getting the recognition and authority that I deserve, while everyone else gets what they want/deserve as well! It's a win-win for everybody! It's time we worked together to improve Wikipedia and get rid of those outdated things that should've been done away with over a decade ago! I make edits with the sole intention of improving Wikipedia to the way it SHOULD be, and by reverting that, you risk turning Wikipedia into a laughing stock, and NOBODY wants that! I hope you learned a valuable lesson from all that! BestDJofAllTime (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:PRIMARY. Wikipedia generally operates off of third party accounts, not first party. The rest of what you're saying - it's simple. It doesn't work like that. Do what you're saying, and your account is blocked. Sergecross73   msg me  01:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Third party accounts mean nothing! The artist himself can be taken more seriously than any third party account in the universe! That much is obvious! Also, it DOES work like that! You can't block somebody's account just because you disagree with their methods and whatnot- ESPECIALLY when said person's methods and the way they see the bigger picture are all a million times better than they way anyone else sees the same picture! Come on now! I'm also immune to any threats you can send my way, and not only that, there is always- and I mean ALWAYS- a way around anything and everything! You can NEVER stop somebody permanently- unless you kill them that is, but is murder really the way you want to go? Didn't think so! BestDJofAllTime (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you don't care about third party sourcing, then Wikipedia is not the place for you. If you want to say whatever you want, go start a blog or social media account. Want to write on Wikipedia? Start valuing what reliable third party sources say. Simple as that. Sergecross73   msg me  02:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Hello, BestDJofAllTime. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.
 * Using your own reviews and writings as a source conflicts with a swath of our policies and guidelines (such as conflicts of interest, original research, unreliable sourcing). Please only add content to articles that has been published in independent reliable sources, not your own reviews.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I actually work as a freelancer now, so I no longer have an employer! I work on my own, and I'm technically my own boss! While I used an article from before I started working as a freelancer, because I now work as a freelancer, I no longer have an employer, client, or affiliation! BestDJofAllTime (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Linking to your own works, former or otherwise, presents a conflict of interest. Your own research cannot be used as a source for genres. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not "research" though! It's fact! There's also the fact that I've interviewed the artist in the past and he told me himself what genres his albums are! Of course- I had already known that beforehand, since I'm a big fan of his and I own most of his albums anyway, but since he's the guy who wrote the music and produced the albums, he's more reliable than any other source out there- including myself! He'd know better than anyone else what type of music he makes! BestDJofAllTime (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're not listening to anything editors are trying to explain to you here. What you know from personal experience, and have written about from your personal experience, cannot be used to support the inclusion of genres. Only independent reliable sources can be used (see WP:RSMUSIC and WP:NOTRSMUSIC, which another editor has already linked to in a post above). I understand that when you start participating in a website or project you can't know all of the policies and guidelines right off the bat, but when established long-time editors explain that you are violating those policies and guidelines the expectation is that you stop. So please stop.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Genres
Maybe WP:EXPLICITGENRE isn't clear, or maybe you're having a difficult time clicking through to it, so I'll copy the text here: When classifying music, sources must explicitly attribute the genre to the work or artist as a whole. One may sometimes encounter non-definitive language like When you see a source mention a genre, it must use direct language. Like so:
 * ... balances the line between indie pop and electronica ...
 * ... antecedent to the later noise pop of Sonic Youth ...
 * ... nearly proto-punk in its harsh vocals ...
 * ... combines elements of folk, jazz, and hip hop ...


 * ✅ ... the album is a quintessential example of avant-rock ...
 * ✅ ... a successful fusion of jazz rap ...

Descriptors should also not be combined with styles (i.e. "gothic pop" should not be attributed to a source who writes that a "gothic" song is pop; the phrase "gothic pop" must be unambiguously referenced as the kind of song it is).

In short, in the JFH review there's the section at the top that lists the artist, album, a link to their discography on the subject a list of genres time and other things. We cannot use any of those details. We can only use the details that are in the block of written text that starts with, "In today's music scene", and ends with, "well worth a listen".

In the prose, Larsen only mentions genres a few times: However, none of these meet the criteria set out in EXPLICITGENRE. If you think it does, instead of calling me an idiot (and since I assume you have some affiliation with the church, and should know about Matthew 5:22), explain it to me like I'm not, because you've failed to do so up to this point. In short, don't talk about why I'm wrong, explain why you're right. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) "once popular genre of rap/rock"
 * 2) "consistently been churning out rap/rock records for over a decade"
 * 3) "with a little dose of pop thrown in"
 * 4) "The rocking title track"
 * 5) "acting as an anthem
 * 6) "hip-hop influenced"
 * 7) "the heavier"
 * 8) "a tender, poppier tune"
 * 9) "The anthemic"

I gave you an explanation, so check it out! BestDJofAllTime (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record, you did not explain where this review explicitly lists Christian hip hop, Christian rock, or rap rock as you added here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=This_Is_Not_the_End_(Manafest_album)&curid=61991141&diff=1015534346&oldid=1015533404 . Read the instructions in the section I copied and answer it clearly with a quote from the article, otherwise, the content will be removed. This is not about feelings, but reliably sourced genres.
 * Further, your edits are no longer supplying the reference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It lists the genres right at the top of the review! It says "Hip Hop, Rock, Rap Rock". I added in the word "Christian" because the artist is a Christian artist, as well as the fact that the reviewer forgot to mention that part! Plus, Manafest himself has described his music as "Christian Hip Hop" as well as "Christian Rock/Rap" on multiple occasions! I've already told you many times that Manafest himself is the most reliable source out of them all, so the fact that I make my edits based on that shouldn't come as a concern whatsoever! BestDJofAllTime (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the point, the reviewer did not add those genres. Only genres explicitly described in the prose of the review can be used.
 * What the artists thinks (or the artist's management wants to project) has long been rejected by the project.
 * I'm not trying to push my point of view on you, I am trying to explain what Wikipedia has agreed on, and as you can see from the warning from Sergecross73 We have a lot of policies and standards established and set up. You would probably make more progress if you took the time to learn why we've set up up the way we have before you attempt to upend it all.
 * Since you're on the losing end of an edit war, you should probably stop restoring those genres and start reading about the process. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are! You ARE trying to push your extremely flawed point of view on me, and since I know it's flawed, that's why I keep changing it back to how it should be! Also, I'm actually NOT on the losing end of an "edit war", I'm actually on the winning end of one! Why? Because this isn't an "edit war"- at least not for me! YOU are the one warring with ME by undoing all of my hard work, and as long as you continue to do that WITHOUT listening to reason, you won't get very far in life! If only you would listen to me instead of ignoring my reliable information and refusing to acknowledge the artist's own description of his own work, which includes- but does not solely mean- the genre of his music! If you did that and just accepted that I am right and that you are wrong, this could all end- just like that! Plus, I've been winning for my entire life, and I've never lost! So, you're also wrong there! Lastly, the reviewer DID include the genres in the prose of their review, so quit trying to convince me that they did not! I know how reviews are written, and it's clear that you do not, so it's time to stop trying to convince me that you're right, when you're obviously not! I know of all your so-called "policies" and "standards", and I don't give a rat's @$$ about any of that crap! When they're as outdated as they are, no one cares about them! There's ALWAYS a way around that sort of thing! It's about high time somebody upended them- whether it be me or otherwise! Improving as the times go on is MUCH better for business like this anyway, because when you start ignoring what people say- ESPECIALLY the a musician's own words regarding what genre of music they make, it just makes you look bad! I don't do that, and look where it's gotten me! You're also ignoring people who take this sort of thing to the article's own talk page to reach consensus, which also is NOT good! I mean, all this talk about reaching consensus and whatnot, yet you refuse to even reach consensus! That just goes to show just how badly we're in need of a shakeup on Wikipedia! You can't ignore the artist's own words on this! BestDJofAllTime (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, please read WP:PRIMARY. Sergecross73   msg me  02:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not reading ANYTHING until everything I've said is ALL read/acknowledged! So far, it's been ignored, and because it's been ignored I will ignore anything sent to me until everything I've said stops being ignored! I think that's a fair deal, how about you? There's a "consensus" we can agree upon! I mean, how do you think I feel when my reliable information is being ignored? I'd say it's time you felt the same thing! That doesn't mean I won't read it at all- I'll just wait until everybody reads everything I've written! That's a fair trade if you ask me! BestDJofAllTime (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No. You are not in any condition to make deals or ultimatums. Learn and follow the rules or your account will be blocked from editing. Sergecross73   msg me  02:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have read everything you have read and I acknowledge that you claim to be a music journalist who used to write for Jesus Freak Hideout. I recognize that you think you know everything and ever other individual who writes about music is an idiot and only you know the facts. I know that you claim that you have spoken with Chris, and have interviewed him. But here's what I can't put together: if you no longer write for Jesus Freak Hideout, and the album in question was released at the end of 2019, so when did you talk to Chris about this album in particular? If you did, and you were still working at the website, why didn't you write about it?
 * I have more questions, like why you're not working for the website any longer because all of the reviewers I interact with have been with their publications until they folded, and those that aren't, were released by the publication rather than walk away. I suspect that has to do with the air of superiority and unwillingness to learn to work within an established system that you've displayed here, but that question is not germane to editing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason I quit working for Jesusfreakhideout was due to a couple of different reasons. 1) I got tired of the typical incompetence of the other reviewers and so I figured I'd quit while I was ahead. 2) I got better opportunities elsewhere! When you get to become a freelancer and work on your own time, on your own schedule, and without anybody to boss you around, it's quite the liberating feeling, and so as soon as I got that opportunity- I jumped on it! In fact, even if it wasn't for the first reason, I still would've taken it, because to be your own boss is too awesome to pass up! In regards to your other question, after I met and interviewed Chris (Manafest)- I decided to leave JFH, and what a lot of people won't tell you is that if there's anything you write for a company and that doesn't get published before you leave said company, the chances of it actually getting published afterwards are extremely slim- if not even impossible in most cases. So, even if somebody were to write an entire article and then leave before it gets published (as it takes a while for most professional materials to get printed like that), said article pretty much gets permanently deleted. In other words, you'd never see it written in an article after that point, unless you somehow get extremely lucky in that regard- or you happen to sneak a copy of it out with you and then get it printed/published independently elsewhere! The other reviewers you've spoken with have all likely never gotten the experience like I did, which is why they would've been with their company until it folded! My exact situation was quite unique, and so I knew I had to take it as soon as it happened! I had interviewed Chris (Manafest) at the start of 2019, so by the time I left it hadn't been published yet, and it likely never will be published. So, of course- even though I remember it, the chances of me getting access to it again are pretty much slim, because I wasn't able to get a copy of the interview before I left JFH. If I would've, I'd have been more than happy to share it with you, but unfortunately, I was so excited by my then-upcoming opportunity that I didn't really think that far ahead. That much is on me entirely! BestDJofAllTime (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Still doesn't address the issue of your refusal to acknowledge and follow the established process here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I thought you were going to have more questions for me first!

But, since you don't, I'll respond by saying the following. There is no "established process" here! Having outdated ways of doing things does NOT make those things established! Also, the ONLY sensible way to live in this world is without rules- mainly those of the outdated variety, because to go by 3rd party accounts- and ONLY by 3rd party accounts- when 99.9% of the time said 3rd party accounts are 100% incorrect and completely fake and/or biased news, then that's not the way to go! I mean, when the 1st party account (in this case- Manafest himself) is FAR more reliable yet you STILL decide to go by 3rd party accounts than are entirely wrong FAR more times then they're right, that's a stupid way of doing things! 3rd party accounts are NOT going to know everything, whereas 1st party accounts are FAR more likely to know the correct information! I know for a FACT that I would MUCH rather take Chris' (Manafest's) own word for it then what any 3rd party account could possibly say, and I'm not the only one to be that way! If you truly are a Christian, you'd understand what I'm talking about, because God is also a 1st party account! That's why if anyone here should be taking my words to heart, it's you! Whether you do or not is beyond my control, but I certainly hope that you actually do decide to take my words to heart, because that way, we can improve wikipedia for the better! Enough with this communist extremist crap that says we have to only follow certain rules in order to be successful! Those types of people are wrong, and there's nothing that they can do about it! It's time we took back what they've taken from us, and that starts by changing their so-called "rules" (which are actually nothing but communist extremism) and making this world- including Wikipedia- a better place! They can't block us, because that removes our right to free speech! Who cares what they think or say? They don't know what they're talking about, but we do! That's why with their communist regime, I will NEVER go by what they say, and neither should you! Hopefully you understand what I mean! BestDJofAllTime (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want to change our outdated ways, go ahead to try. You'll need to gain WP:CONSENSUS.
 * WP:V is one of the pillars. Good luck changing that, but I would be happy see you try.
 * I do not care what you claim, you have to prove it with reliable third-party sources otherwise, it can (and should) be removed. Since you are not God, you'll have to provide sources.
 * As for claims of us being communists, that's the best April fool's joke I've read today. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

For the last time, third part sources are NOT reliable whatsoever! 1st party sources- such as Manafest's own words- are! If you refuse to change your stance on that, you'll be on a one-way trip to hell, I assure you! Also, April Fool's Day is over! In other words, that wasn't a joke- it's 100% FACT! It's well-known across the world that people are falling for the lies of the mainstream media, and I will NOT stand for that- EVER! By refusing to change the communist ways that are done here, you're just as much of a problem as they are! As a so-called Christian, you should know better than that! Jesus would be with me on this matter, I assure you! In fact- I KNOW He is! Because of that, and because God lives in me, you can take my word for everything I've just said! I speak nothing but the truth, and I don't appreciate idiots telling me what I can and cannot say! That's why I stopped working for JFH to begin with! The amount of lies that you honestly believe is absolutely shocking- even for a so-called Christian! I mean, my goodness! Even though I've given you real, reliable sources, you've refused to believe or even accept them, without so much of a answer as to why! Also, I WILL change things, and anybody who stands in my way will be dealt with in the name of God! Are you seriously THAT stupid to think that you can stop me? That's pretty pathetic- even for you! If you're THAT convinced about 3rd party sources being reliable, then you have a LOT of explaining to do, my friend! Unless you plan on eventually going down a 1-way trip down the highway to hell, you'd best get to it! I'm waiting! BestDJofAllTime (talk) 06:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm glad it's the last time, because we understand the flaws in the system, but that is policy. It's still April 1 where I (and Chris) live. I guess it's not in New Jersey. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not actually the last time dumbass! In fact, we're just getting started! BestDJofAllTime (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you would like to go directly to the discussion: [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The section should be there for a few days anyhow. It will then be moved to the archives. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)