User talk:Walter Görlitz/Archived Talk to 2010-06

Archives

Archive 1 2007-01-30

Archive 2 2010-03-31

NEW - "Christian Metal Radio" section for Christian Metal

I just went ahead and and Metal Pulse into this version, if for no other reason than to eliminated conflict. basically if we leave it out, they will just keep coming back to dipute it. I will try adding this condensed version back to the Christian Metal article now that things have calmed down. i hope this time there is no conflict. Armorbearer777 (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Since Christian Metal is very much a counterculture of the Christian music scene, it has never had any major corporate radio outlets, as opposed to the more accepted GMA associated Christian music formats. Christian Metal Radio can be hard to reference and even more difficult to establish notability for. Nevertheless, Christian Metal has remained culturally significant, primarily enduring the test of time through word of mouth and through the help of pioneering Christian Rock & Metal broadcasters. In spite of the lack of commercial radio support, Christian Metal broadcasters have managed to hit the airwaves on public radio, college radio, internet radio and in recent years through podcasting via the internet. As the new age of digital broadcasting technology becomes more accessible, the number of Christian Metal broadcasters is steadily increasing. Some of today's largest Non-commercial Christian Alternative radios stations such as RadioU, Call FM and Air1 have some Christian Metal programing late nights and on weekends. However, as a whole these larger stations generally stick to a mostly GMA Christian Music format. Other stations such as Almighty Metal Radio, Savage Rock Radio, Reign Radio, The Refinery Rock Radio, FuelRadio.fm and Blabber Jesus Radio have been able to maintain 24 hour Christian Metal formats through the promising medium of internet radio. Some notible Christian Metal Radio Shows & DJs incude: Jesus Solid Rock Show Hosted by Pastor Bob Beeman ('74 - '80), Intense Radio Founded in '95 by Pastor Bob Beeman and Sanctuary International, HM Podcast with HM Magazine founder & publisher Doug Van Pelt, The Full Armor of God Broadcast ('97 - present) with Bro Scotland Kubinski (A.K.A. Kuba "The Demon Slayer"), Radio U Hard Core ('02 - present) Hosted by Jaddeus Dempsey (A.K.A. "Jad"), The Nation of Rockwell ('03 - present) Hosted by Quinton Rockwell (A.K.A. "Q Rock") and Metal Pulse Radio ('07 - present) with Dale Hoffman (A.K.A. Fishing D).

Sorry about the criteria statement, I added that without signing it. I though it was a good idea, but can see why it may not have been. Sorry bro. Armorbearer777 (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Whitecaps Roster

I added the Whitecaps website reference. Everything should be in order now - Thanks. Kasperone(talk) 18:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

SkyTrain

I added the articles to the new Category:Transportation in Burnaby, and some of them were already in other city-specific subcategories as well. They don't really need to be directly in Category:Transportation in Greater Vancouver at the same time as being in the subcategories. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Vancouver Whitecaps 2010 squad

A tag has been placed on Template:Vancouver Whitecaps 2010 squad requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Skillet Tours

On the Skillet touring section you made the valid point that festivals should not be mentioned as a)The section was about the tours that the band had done not festivals, and b) there were far too many festivals. However would it be okay if I made refferance to some of the headline acts that Skillet will perform with over the Summer at festivals, such as Godsmack, Rob Zombie, Three Days Grace and Daughtry? These shows will most probably be some of the biggest Skillet has done to date (both in terms of size and acts headlining) and thus deserves some mention. (116Rebel (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)).

Power Metal

Hi Walter, I believe the deletion made from the Power Metal section of the Christian Metal article was erroneous. The information I added previously was not repetitive, but was indeed new information (the only info there previously was seven years old!)...and the bio that was linked in place of my sentence was also from 2003. A number of other bands listed in this same section are given extended discography treatment...I don't believe that one sentence updating Theocracy's discography to the present is repetitive or unnecessary. Premsta (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This somehow got posted in the Christian Metal Radio post. I didn't want you to miss it, it sounds urgent. Forgive me for taking the liberty of editting your user page, but I only did it to help you bro. Armorbearer777 (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Larry Norman

Hi Walter

Just to let you know, I've reached out to smjwalsh asking him/her to discuss before making changes... obviously there are a wide range of opinions, so it's probably better we reach consensus first, for anything other than minor edits.

Regards

Matthewdjb (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was overzealous and was going off of an outdated precedent: you're right

Walter,

You're right, I was overzealous and had remembered an earlier version of the 2009 Canadian Championship page. Firstly, I'd been working on the kits and line-ups for the 2010 CONCACAF Champions League Finals, and when I saw the line-ups on the 2010 Canadian Championship page, I added the kits in the same format. Secondly, I was trying to imitate what was on the 2009 page, but I neglected to check the current appearance of the page: I went off memory alone, which was a mistake. What I had done was standard operating procedure for a final (see the articles on the UEFA Champions League final, Copa Libertadores finals, etc.), but you're right, they shouldn't be on the Canadian Championship article. I'm sorry to have made things more difficult for you. Thanks for straightening me out and take care!

TFCforever (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Admin intervention

I didn't want to make a fuss on the talk page for the article, but the person on the other side of the dispute was blocked. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 12:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume he means Talk:The Roxx Regime Demos. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, neither User:Amsaim nor User:Koavf have been blocked from editing and there are no block on the page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

See here. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 16:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks?

Really You called me arrogant, an idiot, and labeled my edits as vandalism—all of which are personal attacks. I am interested in seeing a diff where I made a personal attack against you. Please provide one on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No threats. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

What? You claimed that I made a personal attack against you—please show me a diff of that personal attack, or else I am forced to assume that it never happened. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You threatened me. Still haven't had any success in selecting or displaying revisions. They are present in the history if you want to remind yourself, but here is the text in question:

I will pursue the appropriate action. Do you understand?

This is the sort of behavior that will have you put on the Twinkle blacklist and if you continue name-calling, you are likely to face a more serious sanction.

The first being more blatant than the second. The second was a threat of "blacklisting" me. Something with which you're familiar for your previous actions. Again, please read all of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, particularly What is considered to be a personal attack?.

Your actions on The Roxx Regime Demos were, despite being banned from editing for two days for the same action, were uncalled for. I reverted them in the strongest possible way to make a statement. You then came to my talk page and threatened me. I reverted them as vandalism as well. I have that right on my talk page. I suggest that if you don't like being called-out on the carpet for your actions that you stop them. I don't mind taking whatever heat you throw my way for calling you a vandal.

We were trying to reach consensus on the article's talk page. If you wish to help us reach consensus, feel free to join us. If you don't want to help reach consensus, please don't make arbitrary changes to that article, particularly around the areas with which were are trying to come to consensus. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope None of those are personal attacks in any way.

Then you truly don't understand. You threatened me and that is an attack according to What is considered to be a personal attack?.

And I've never been blacklisted for abusing Twinkle, so you're wrong on that count, too.

Never said you were blocked for using a tool I said you were banned for going into the The Roxx Regime Demos and edit warring. I should have said you were blocked for edit warring.

Furthermore, I was not threatening to blacklist you myself, as I cannot do that—I was merely pointing out that abusing Twinkle by fraudulently labeling someone else's good faith edits vandalism.

If you had good faith, it certainly didn't show. The edit history on the page is evidence of that.

I suggest you see here: Wikipedia:TWINKLE#Blacklisting. Since you do not understand what constitutes a personal attack,

Again, you're wrong. I fully and completely understand it. I also understand what I did was an attack against you. I also know that you still don't recognize what you did was an attack.

I suggest you read this as well: Wikipedia:NPA#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F.

I fully understand.

Also, I was not banned, but blocked.

Sorry. Blocked, Banned. Abusive behaviour should result in a punitive response. You got yours for that previous action. I'm sorry I miscontrued your punishment.

Again, you may want to read WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK. Honestly, this exchange is a complete mess

says the one who is making it a mess just as much as I am

and it shows that you are not sufficiently familiar with the definitions of vandalism, personal attacks, blocks, bans, civility, or a host of other basic terms on Wikipedia.

I understand enough to know that I've never had punitive action taken against me for my behaviour. Can you say the same?

That having been said, you definitely know better than to call someone an idiot and you surely also know that it is not going to be tolerated. If you're ready to be more civil, I'll happily collaborate with you.

Feel free. We are discussing the matter now and have commented on your action and labelled it as inappropriate and moved on.

If not, I will ignore you. And if you persist in making false accusations about me and undermining my ability to contribute to Wikipedia, I will seek the intervention of an admin as that becomes necessary. This is all very simple, and I hope that you can abide by it in the future. This is a "threat" only to the extent that it is predicated on you disobeying the very simple ground rules for Wikipedia; if you place nice, there is nothing threatening about that at all. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually that wasn't a threat at all. It was a discussion.

Your threat: I will pursue the appropriate action. Do you understand?

How this could have been a discussion: "Please don't do this again. It's inappropriate. What did I do to get you so angry?". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Your earlier comments, however were a threat. An unveiled threat. I trust you've learned how to reach consensus before making a major change that is currently under discussion. I trust that before you come back, you'll tuck your ego into your pocket and assume that others may actually know something. What's that called again? Oh yeah: assuming good faith. I'll have no problems labelling your actions as inappropriate if you haven't. I do know what inappropriate behaviour is and I rarely stoop to that level when responding, but your actions merited a strong response. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No This is a colossal waste of time. If you think I made a personal attack against you, I suggest you ask an admin. It will be interesting to see what he says. If you think "Abusive behaviour should result in a punitive response" then I guess you think you should be punished for calling me an idiot, right? I guess we agree on one thing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I will not elevate your actions to an admin because I trust you've learned from my response to your actions: you haven't been back to the article to make changes. Feel free to report my actions. As I've said before, it will be very easy to explain.

As it stands, I'm working with the editors to bring that article to consensus. If you don't want to participate, that's a loss to us. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Association Football competitions

Would you like to join Association Football competitions Kingjeff (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm not a huge football fan. I really only follow two clubs, as my edits show. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There are way too many soccer competitions in the world to take care of. Maybe you can take care of the USSF Division 2 competition pages along with their players. Kingjeff (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

An example of what you can do is something like 2005 USL First Division. This is clearly a stub-Class article whichbarely has anything. As a follower USF-2, you could work on these pages. Kingjeff (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yowza. Like I said, I'm not a huge footy fan and that seems like a bit of work. I'll see what I can do though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, it shouldn't be done by 1 person. Do as much as you feel you can do. Kingjeff (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the project is off for the time being. Kingjeff (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Petra

Regarding this revision, whereas the who tag may have been appropriate, the citation needed tag was not. The material is cited later in the article so a citation in the lead is not required. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It was cited in the article, but not in the lede. Since the pragraphs were essentially at opposite ends of the article, it made sense to include it both locations using the name tag. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Bayern Munich

Hi, about the vandalism reverts in this article: I usually do put a notice (one of those mainly) on the contributor's talk page. Sometimes I skip this if there are already some messages concerning vandalism on the page or if I think it could have been a good faith edit. But I'll try to be more consequent in future; getting vandals banned is hard work. --Jaellee (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Petra (band)

I wrote this on my talk page, but I'm not sure how all this works, so I'll paste it here too.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I would call it soft rock, but as I said, Petra over the course of 33 years and two dozen albums had one record that some considered too light. I'd say that's squarely within the confines of the very broad set of genres implied by the word "rock." At any rate, I think your most recent edit splits the difference well, and I'm happy to leave it there. Paa00a (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Me too. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Citation Styles

Can we resolve this without having a fight over it? Your style is acceptable if you delete the free flowing references below it since one of them is not cited in the article and the other is cited in the in-line citation. I'm perfectly willing to go along with your style if you are willing to delete the primary source. Redfarmer (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The second reference is for the entire article. I asked you several times to explain which parts of the articled needed in-line citations. I explained that everything on the article was covered by the references. You told me that in-line citations are required for all articles (you have to hit a lot of articles up with that tag--you should get busy on that by the way). So I added one in the only part of the article where it made any sense to do so. Then you wanted to put a Notes section in to deal with the reference. I showed you that it's not necessary. Now you're telling me to delete a reference to the whole page for some new concept you're calling free-flowing references (notice the hyphen, which is correct in English). You've already admitted you know nothing about the subject and I'll state it plainly: the reference is for the contents on the entire article. It always has been.

And once again, you take it up on my talk page instead of the articles' pages. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Because the dispute is between the two of us, no other editors, and it would be inappropriate to have it on the talk page of the article. The two styles are footnoting and short refs. Footnoting allows the user to simply give full footnotes where appropriate and use the notes section as the references section. (See WP:FOOTNOTES). Note from this page there is stylistically no need to list all the references below the footnotes. The other is the style I have been referring to. If a source is used in the article, it should be cited using one of these styles. If it cannot be cited using one of these styles, it should not be in a reference section but rather a further reading section. If you are using another style I'm not aware of, please cite the link to that style. Redfarmer (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You apparently didn't read my commit comments or what I wrote above so let me state it plainly: I know that there are two ways to include references. The Notes section is new and most articles don't use it so I don't either. Please do what you want since you won't leave me alone until I do what you want. I suggest that for the sake of consistency, please add a Notes section to the remainder of the articles in the Wikipedia Albums project. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Munich Invitation

Hello,

You are invited to join WikiProject Munich!

There are a lot of things to do in this project. From creating new articles to finetuning articles into featured article status.

How can you help?

• You can join a Task Force.
• You can help comform Munich-related articles to Wikipedia Policy.
• You can get free Munich-related images under GNU Free Documentation License.
• You can create and edit of Munich-related articles.
• You can do translations from German Wikipedia to English Wikipedia on Munich-related articles.
• You can help do assessments of Munich-related articles.
• You can help expand articles currently in the Stub-class and Start-class.
• You can help reference articles.
• Since original research is against Wikipedia policy, you can research topics to expand. This means you don't need to know anything about Munich.
• You can help expand stubs and start-class articles and help finetune other articles into Featured article status.

A WikiProject of this nature is very broad. Munich has a rich history in sports, culture, politics along with many more topics. Feel free to help out in your area of interest.

If you want to check the project out you can click the link above. If you want to join the project, you can sign up here.

If you have any questions feel free to contact myself or any other member of the project.

Kingjeff (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Danke sehr. Es tut mir leid, aber ich weiß überhaupt nichts über München. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to know much. I'm sure you have the ability to work on the football articles. Kingjeff (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Oba naa. : ) --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

2010 Canadian Championship

The red color is traditionally used to indicate that team is not able to qualify to next round in small groups – I'm sure you've seen it many times through the football articles since almost every international tournament does have a group round. Because Canadian Championship is in first place the qualifying tournament to CONCACAF CL, I thought it's important to indicate that a club can't reach this goal. I should have provided the key to used colors though. Regarding the fb template – I have used the shortened version of it with no "qualification/relegation" column having in mind exactly the same purpose so I don't understand your argument here. —WiJG? 07:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Victoria Day

Per WP:LEADCITE, references aren't necessary in article leads; the lead summarises information in the article body, and that information is already sourced. If you've some other issue with the article, please discuss it on the talk page first; WP:BRD should have guided you to do so after you were reverted the first time. Thanks. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

They're not, but the problem is that the references given below are not complete and since they are the first instance of the term are where I tagged them. You have been incorrectly deleting additional changes to the article when you have been reverting the correct request. I have decided to stop having you delete my requests and have moved the requests to a place where you requested even though it's misleading to have it there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

See my talk page. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing there. You keep adding <small> tags to the references, which are not required. You also keep deleting a valid reference in the Lede.--Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Mdash template

Just to be specific, the mdash template page recommends "no space before the template and one space after the template." I made a similar error with this before. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing

I note you went to the talk pages of the only three (four? I don't recognise User:Izno) editors to ever voice an objection to the <small> formatting around ref template code. Both the one-sided nature of your appeal (vote stacking) and the tone of the message you left (campaigning) are an infringement on WP:CANVASS. Please be more neutral and fair in future. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't vote stacking, I was merely contacting a few of those who commented on your talk page in the initial time I had. Feel free to contact others at will. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

All of whom side with you. As well, the note you left for them contained unfounded claims about my personal feelings. The former is vote stacking, the latter campaigning. A neutral, general note in one or more public locations would've been the appropriate course of action. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll contact everyone who commented on your talk page under that section, when I have time since you don't seem willing to do so. Besides, it's not a vote. It's consensus building. Feel free to provide a more neutral template for me to use, although I believe that you don't like the fact that I am removing your formatting preference. Here is the text as I posted it on the users' talk pages:

I have started to discover where User:Miesianiacal has added <small> tags around <ref> tags. The editor doesn't seems to like this. On one article he statedlong-standing on high-traffic article; please seek consensus to remove so I added a section on Talk:Prime Minister of Canada for that purpose. You have expressed concern about this in the past an thought that your input would be beneficial there as well.

Feel free to edit it to remove any perceived feelings or POV. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. I looked at your talk page and found only the following users in that discussion thread:

• User:Gary King|User talk:Gary King
• User:Rrius|User talk:Rrius

I suppose you want me to follow the discussions mentioned in your talk page too. I suppose I can. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I have also found:

• User:Christopher Parham|User talk:Christopher Parham
• User:Epipelagic|User talk:Epipelagic
• User:Eubulides|User talk:Eubulides
• User:Gadget850|User talk:Gadget850
• User:Izno|User talk:Izno
• User:Jc3s5h|User talk:Jc3s5h
• User:MickMacNee|User talk:MickMacNee
• User:Ohms law|User talk:Ohms law
• User:Pmanderson|User talk:Pmanderson
• User:TheDJ|User talk:TheDJ

I will indicate which have already been notified. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Bold indicates that they have been contacted. Once you have provided me with an approved template, I will contact the others. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Before I can do that, I need to understand what it is you ultimately want to achieve with these efforts. I can't see why - or even that it's appropriate - to solicit input from those particular editors on a matter related to a page none have ever edited. If you want to address something beyond just that article, I'd think you should be doing so in another, more public forum. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I want to recuse myself of the implication that I was canvassing when I was merely contacting individuals who commented on the topic an ran out of time. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

Okay, I'll leave the ones with some good sources alone, but if you look at the Thousand Foot Krutch one you'll see I'm the one removing unsourced content there. And with Masters of Horror, how am I supposed to cite a source when the source is just "the episode itself"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.171.224 (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact, in the Masters of Horror ep all I did was rephrase the sentence to make it flow better. That and the TFK revert make me wonder: are you actually looking at my edits before reverting them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.171.224 (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Now I understand. You don't like the fact that I continue to restore genres to bands after you delete them with no comment simply because they have no citation and you don't think they're nu metal, or whatever genre. In cases like this, it is appropriate to request for a citation before simply deleting them. In several cases, you also removed cited genres. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about the good cited ones :p Like I say, I'll leave them. But wiki rules say anything unsourced can be removed, a genre with a 'cite' tag just means it's one that a wiki user wants in. You could add any genre in and put a 'cite' tag after it. I'll leave those ones alone for now though, we'll see if anything comes up. 83.218.158.202 (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

To FC or not to FC

I was just applying the standard link piping convention we use across the soccer project, trying to maintain some semblance of consistency across the various infoboxes, templates and lists which mention the teams in question. It's really not a big deal. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Calvary Chapel

Hi Walter,

• No "vendetta" on Calvary Chapel, that is a very strong word.
• On sourced information, I provided an audio recording of Chuck Smith, and the user identifying himself only as an IP address decided to delete it -- twice, citing Verifiability. Unfortunately, he has not provided any reason, other than Verifiability. An audio recording of Chuck Smith certainly seems like a "Verifiable" entity. Please explain this.
• On the fact that dates don't need to be updated for NPOV. I didn't know, so thanks for the information. From LtWin's comment, NPOV date is supposed to show how long the page has been in dispute. That makes sense. Sliceofmiami (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I added the voice reference to the page. Smith discussed a misinterpretation of something about Hal Lindsay, but I could not find good references for that. Sliceofmiami (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary

I enjoyed this one. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thousand Foot Krutch

You seen to be under the impression that putting "citation needed" after something means it's okay. A genre with a cite tag after it is nothing more than a user opinion. By rights, I can remove such an unsourced piece of information anytime I wish, the rules very clearly state that anything unsourced can be challenged and removed. I'm not obliged to leave it for any length of time at all, not a day, a week, a year, anything, because until someone provides a source it's just unsourced opinion. I've allowed those unsourced genres to stay in for one week as a goodwill gesture. Not an obligation, I didn't have to, but I did, to give someone time to find source. Until those show up, there's no reason for me to let it stay any longer. 81.154.151.34 (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that it's not OK. You can remove unsourced material and I can restore it and give editors the opportunity to back it up. There's no time limit to the ref request. I am simply allowing editors to add information to a possibly questionable statement, one that has survived a long time. I'm not saying it's ideal, but by marking it as dubious, it allows any readers to know that it's status. If it were completely improbable (sating that they were a disco band or electronica) it would be without question. I for one agree in part with the genres and am trying to find refs, which is why I keep it there as a reminder. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not stopping anyone from adding sourced information in. All I'm removing is an unsourced, editor point of view. It doesn't matter how probable or improbable you think the genres in question are, because that is simply your point of view. If you've got a source, add it. Until you do, I'm under no obligation to leave it in there. I'm going to revert it once more. If you counter-revert again, I'll report it as repeated insertion of unsourced information. 86.129.199.44 (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

So Shall I follow you for a while and remove, at your suggestion, any genres for any article you touch using this same principle? I fully understand how Wikipedia works and this is one of those instances where it works poorly. I have seen many articles where common knowledge can be challenged by any editor. Feel free to delete the lede and much of the infobox on The Beatles since it's not sourced while you're at it. I'll see if I can find WP:V sources to back-up what is removed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You can do so, if you wish. And if there are chunks of the article on The Beatles that aren't sourced, I'd be perfectly entitled to remove them, according to wikipedia rules. If you want to go and find anything else that isn't sourced and remove it, you can, that's what the rules say. But other articles having unsourced material is not a good reason to let it go here. 86.129.199.44 (talk)