Talk:Old Belvedere Cricket Club

Unsourced expansion

While the article has been expanded and there are clear copyright issues with the pictures, "own work" doesnt mean scanned or copied from other sources, like this example. Most of the article is unsourced and in the former of lists (are they notable?). Murry1975 (talk) 12:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Murry1975 and think the various embedded lists are too long and unsourced. Wikipedia articles are not intended to include everything about the subject of the article. Lists are subject to WP:LSC and there needs to be some basic criteria established for inclusion. The easiest way to do that is simply only to include those individuals for which a stand-alone Wikipedia article exists. This article is not intended to be the "official website" of the club per WP:NOTWEBHOST and not every person who ever served as an officer of the club needs to be mentioned.

Same goes for the "For the record" section; it's unsourced and not everyone needs to be mentioned. The best solution would be a reliable source for all of the records and then simply listing the record holder for each. If sources cannot be found or do not exist, the content should probably be removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I am being attacked on all sides!! Please be patient, I am trying to do this correctly. Let me start by first addressing the issue of sourcing. The names of club officers are taken from the various yearly Minute Books of the club's AGM and other regular meetings. They exist only in hand written form in these books. I include them in the article in order to ensure that any future researcher would have access to them. It is also possible that the Minute Books will be lost in the future. Please note that the club, although famous in its time, now no longer exists. Data about player achievements is sourced from the many official club score books. They also exist only in hand written form. How should I proceed on this topic?
GDMorgan (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@GDMorgan: Frankly, the club would be better served if you set up a website to house the records, photographs, and other materials. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the articles should not present exhaustive detail. Consider the list of officers: the secretaries and treasurers should not be listed in the article. It is reasonable to list the captains, since the club is notable for its cricket team, and lists of captains are found in articles on other teams. The presidents are a borderline situation: arguments can be made for and against listing them.

Compounding the situation is that you've taken the material directly from the club's own records, which are self-published sources and may be used in limited situations. We prefer articles to be built from secondary sources, such as newspapers, magazines, books, and other publications independent of the subject. That said, in other sports-related articles, we do use the clubs' media guides as sources for club records, so it's not unreasonable to take a similar course here.

Finally, the fact that the club played Senior League cricket for 50-plus years is what makes the club notable; were it not for that, the article would probably have already been nominated for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I will remove all reference to Secretaries and Treasurers.
GDMorgan (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi GDMorgan. I don't think you've been attacked and I haven't seen anything that resembles a such a thing as defined by Wikipedia. I realize you are new to Wikipedia and still learning things on the fly. Experienced editors are encouraged not to bite those who are new to the project, but the ultimate goal is to try and help build the encyclopedia. Well-intentioned mistakes are made all the time and Wikipedia articles are not intended to be perfect. Improvements are made gradually over time by the contributions of many different editors, so there is no need for one editor to feel they have to do all the heavy lifting. The process is iterative and assessing the edits made by other editors is sometimes needed as part of that process. Major additions to articles like the ones you made often require cleaning up after the fact by other editors; this may even include the removal of anything not considered to be compliant with relevant policies and guidelines. We as editors are encouraged to be bold, but sometimes it's also a good idea to be a little cautious.

Wikipedia articles are not necessarily good sources of information for future researchers. In fact, Wikipedia itself doesn't even consider its articles to reliable sources at all per WP:CIRCULAR except for certain specific cases. It would be much better for you, as suggested above by C.Fred, to post all of this information on some website that you have complete editorial control over to ensure that it stays the way you want it for as long as you want it. Anything we as editors add to Wikipedia can essentially be changed or removed at anytime by any person with access to the Internet, so it's not really the best way to try a store (important) information. The fact that you feel this is the purpose of the article indicates to me that you might be slightly misunderstanding Wikipedia's intended purpose.

Regarding sources, Wikipedia basically only requires that they be published, reliable, and used in proper context; it doesn't require that they be accessible via the Internet. You can source old newspapers, books, magazines, team guides, etc. by following the examples given in WP:CITEHOW. Provide as much information as you can about the source because that will help others determine if it is reliable and can be used. Sources also do not have to be in English per WP:NOENG and such sources can be used as long as they are considered reliable. In general, anything independent of the club or those connected to it is preferred, but there are cases (again as C.Fred mentions above) where primary sources may be used. Unfortunately, the stuff we may personally know to be true about something is not considered reliable by Wikipedia, unless it can be verified through reliable sources. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. Wow, I cannot believe the amount of time and volunteer effort that you and your fellow editors expend on keeping Wiki clean. I appreciate very much all the work you have put into reviewing my article and I now understand much better the philosophy behind WP. My use of the word 'attack' was indeed unfortunate. But at one point last week I was dealing with several editors on different Talk pages while also talking to local Wiki people offline here in Ireland. Compounded by my raising issues in the Teahouse. All my own fault. In parallel I was/am trying to come to grips with the markup language and other tech aspects of WP. And not forgetting the associated etiquette!! So for the moment all I ask please is for more time to get this right. I will address the other article issues under the headings you have created below.
GDMorgan (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes when editing gets a little too stressful, it helps to turn the computer off and take the dog for a walk. Wikipedia will still be there when you get back. We're all volunteers here so we don't lose any points for taking a little time of every now and then.-- Marchjuly (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Photographs

NOTE FROM AUTHOR: It appears several team photographs have been deleted due to my inability to prove their origin. I am working to get them restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GDMorgan (talk • contribs) 23:47, 20 March 2016‎ (UTC) (moved from article text to talk page)

You'll not only need to prove their origin, but you'll have to prove they're under a free license or that their copyright has expired. —C.Fred (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Further point: does the gallery of images really add to the understanding of the subject? I'm really thinking the photos are better hosted at the OBCC website, not Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. —C.Fred (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with C.Fred about the gallery of images. They are nice photos for sure and I understand they may have special value to the uploader, but I don't quite see their encyclopedic value. It might be best to focus on those that can be properly incorporated into the text of the article; otherwise, we just have agallery of images (like a photo album) which is not something really allowed per WP:NOTGALLERY and WP:IG. If the purpose is to simply show the photos then that is something that would be more suited for a personal website or social media account like Facebook. The section heading "Down memory lane" itself is not very encyclopedic in tone and is a bit of puffery so it probably needs to be changed to something more neutral as well. There's nothing wrong with the simple "Gallery", is there? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The gallery of photographs was reviewed in detail by another administrator (hence my attack comment above!!) and he seemed happy with them. They are the only remaining record of the various players who played for the club teams. The photographs are my own work (some by friends in the club) but all the negatives were in my personal possession. Unfortunately they are now lost and the only records that remain are scans I have recently taken of some of the old framed versions of the photos which I had donated to the club. In those circumstances I felt it appropriate to add them to the article. I agree about the 'puffery'. Mea Culpa. It is removed.
Thank you for your interest and advice on this matter.

GDMorgan (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure which administrator reviewed the gallery so I am not sure what comments they have made. Image use in articles is generally subject to Wikipedia:Image use policy. Galleries are acceptable, but they have to serve some encyclopedic purpose. Simply adding images to the article like you would add images to a photo album is probably something more suitable for a personal website or perhaps Wikimedia Commons. If the free licensing of these photos is beyond question, they should be safe on Commons. Template:Commons can be added to the article and set to link to c:Category:Old Belvedere Cricket Club where all the images can be seen without being directly included in the article. A few of the more significant of the images can remain in the article, but only better incorporated into the text so that their encyclopedic purpose is more evident. Sometimes looking at featured articles and good articles about similar subjects is a good way to see how images can be better incorporated into the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for all those updates to the article. I feel you are doing my job!! It is much appreciated.

Now for the photographs. Yes I agree fully with what you say. It is much better to have just a few key photos in the article and then provide a link to Commons where the remainder can be viewed. ::I want to give this some thought but in the meantime please can you provide me with the markup to provide the link to the Commons. If I simply add c:Category:Old Belvedere Cricket Club into the article source then I just see that text. I would prefer to see text such as 'Click here to see some additional photos etc etc' thus hiding the markup complexity from the reader. Can that be done?

GDMorgan (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@GDMorgan: You shouldn't feel as if other editors are doing "your" job. Try to think of it as editors working together in collaboration to do "the" job. Everyone who wants to edit the article is essentially an author of the article, so it's not like a private website, etc. where there may indeed only be one.

If you click on Template:Commons, you will be taken the template's page where you will find some information on how it works and how to add it to articles. Basically, all you need to do is add {{Commons|Category :Old Belvedere Cricket Club}} to the appropriate place in the article. Generally, this is near the end of the article right after the "External links" section heading and before the first external link listed. You can practice with using the template in your user sandbox if you want before adding it to the article.

As for the "Click here to see some additional photos etc etc", the template uses the standard wording "Wikimedia Commons has media related to (...)", but there is some flexibility as to what goes in the parentheses. My suggestion is to try not to make it too "simple" and descriptive because that will actually make it more complex. I think "Wikipedia Commons has media related to Old Belvedere Crick Club" is perfectly fine. The template markup for that is {{Commons|Category:Old Belvedere Cricket Club|Old Belvedere Cricket Club}}. If you want to see how that will look in the article, just copy-and-paste the template markup into your sandbox and click preview. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Magic. I got all that. Even learned how to position it left! The documentation in WP is superb. I will start work now on deleting the photos from the main article. I want to do it carefully so may take several days. Is it permissible to insert a line in the main article which tells the reader that there is a link below to see the additional team photographs? GDMorgan (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think adding directions like that is a good idea. It's not very encylopedic in my opinion. There are things called hatnotes which can be used to inform readers of related articles. Template:Commons-inline is sort of like a hatnote, but I think this is typically added to the "External lnks" section and not directly to the body of the article. My suggestion is to try to incorporate the more significant photos directly into the text. For example, if you add some content about certain teams or certain individuals who were significant parts of the team's history, then try adding the relevant photo(s) as near to that text as possible. Smaller galleries of relevant photos at the of their corresponding sections are also often used. There are a couple ways to do this so check other similar articles or WP:IUP for ideas. One thing to try and avoid is too many photos because it can actually detract from what is written by distracting the reader. Also, staggering photos is generally considered to be ok, but sandwiching text between photos should be avoided per MOS:SANDWICH. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi again GDMgone (GDMorgan). It took a little searching, but I was able to find the discussion you had with an administrator about the gallery. That discussion, however, was between you and a Commons' administrator Jameslwoodward at c:User talk:Jameslwoodward#Query about image deletions. Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons are both part of the Wikimedia Foundation. The functions they are intended to serve are slightly different, so not all of their respective policies and guidelines are the same. Jameslwoodward was trying to help you sort out the licensing of some images you uploaded to Commons; he was not giving his approval to the way the images were being used on Wikipedia. Image usage in Wikipedia articles is subject to Wikipedia's image usage policy. IUP not only covers copyright/licensing matters, but also covers formatting and contextual matters. The number of images and the way they are being used in the article is more of a content matter than a licensing matter, so it's Wikipedia's (not Commons) image use policy which matters here. Since all the WMF projects begin with "Wiki" it can be a bit confusing, but they all serve different roles and have slightly different ways of doing things. Hopefully, this help clear things up a bit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

That is essentially correct. I judged that the club was sufficiently notable so that images of its teams were appropriate for Commons and helped Mr. Morgan sort out the licensing for Commons. I take no position on their use or non-use on WP:EN.

Senior Cup victories

I was looking for possible sources for the article and I found the following old articles about the team in the Leinster Cricket Union archives:

1. Leinster Senior Cup Final: 1970
2. Third Leinster Senior Cup in a row for Belvedere in 1966
3. Belvedere win Senior Final in 1965
4. Belvedere first time winners of Leinster Senior Cup: 1964

I believe these are reliable enough per WP:RS, though a second opinion on this would be welcomed. Anyway, these could possibly be used to provide more details on the team's Senior Cup victories. I know zilch about cricket, so I'll just post the sources for now. If someone wants to take a crack at adding the info to the article, then please do; otherwise, I'll try and get back to it later. This might also be a good way to better incorporate some of the team photos into the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I would like to try this myself if that's OK? I am embarrassed that you found those sources when I thought I had exhausted all possible searches for such data. I will do it in the next few days. GDMorgan (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

No need to feel embarrassed. Sources, especially for pre-Internet age subjects, can sometimes be hard to find. Many newspapers, magazines, organizations, etc. have their own websites and sometimes these contain archives of old articles, etc. Many of these pages have search windows at the top, so just see what you can find. Other times, you can simply do a search using something like Yahoo! or Google. Trying different keywords can sometimes get different results. All you have to do then is try see which ones you found might comply with WP:RS. The Irish Times has about 8 pages of results for "Old Belvedre Cricket" (here). I'm not sure how many of them are actually relevant to the team, but I did find two so there are probably more. Some of these may require you subscribe/register and pay a fee, but that does not me they cannot be used as reliable sources. All you have to do is follow WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. You could also ask for help at WT:IRELAND since there is probably a member in that WikiProject who can access the site or knows where to find more sources.

As for these particular Leinster Cricket Union pages. I believe the club's website is probably reliable as a source, but I am not sure if they are the ones who originally generated this content. Some organizations generate their own news stories, etc. while others just copy them from somewhere else. Usually, it better to cite the original source whenever possible.

There are really no deadlines when it comes Wikipedia at least not like there might be for a newspaper or official website working on a time sensitive schedule. Content can be added by anyone. If you can find a way to make the sources work and add that information to the article, then please be bold and do so. Improvements will be made by other editors as needed. Likewise, if someone beats you to the punch and adds something first, try not to become an angry mastadon. Look and what they did and try and improve on it if possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Re your reference to Irish Times newspaper archives, I do have access to this via a friend's subscription. If I find sources there, do I simply state that such material exists in the IT archives (mentioning the issue date) or do I provide a link which will only work for people with a subscription. GDMorgan (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

If the article can be seen online, then it's a good idea to provide a link for it. This allows anyone reading the article to verify the source by simply clicking on the link. Sources, however, ony have to be published and reliable; they do not have to be online. A link just saves the reader from having to try and search the Internet for the information. The easiest way to add a link for the source is to copy the url from your browser's address bar and paste it in as the |url= parameter of the citation template. If the website requires registration or subscription, it helps to also use |registration= or |subscription= parameters just to let the reader know that either may be required to see the source. If you use "The Irish Times" as source, then I suggest using Template:Cite news. Specific information on how to use the template (including various examples) can be found on the template's page while more general information on referencing in general can be found at WP:REFB. Look at the markup of the citations added by others and then practice with the formating of both text and citation of yours in your user sandbox. Copy-and-paste it all into the article when you're ready to go. For reference, some other things to be careful about besides WP:RS when citing or adding sources are WP:INTEGRITY, WP:RSCONTEXT, and WP:SYN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Citation style

I've tried to cleanup the existing citations a bit using the style originally used per WP:CITEVAR. Personally, I prefer to use citation templates since it makes it easier to keep the format consistent, especially when it comes to using archived versions of websites from the Wayback Machine, etc. Using templates won't change how the citations look in the article and is something that will only really be noticed by looking at wiki markup. Any objections to a switch to templates? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Support switch. More consistency, easier to maintain, easier to update if needed. Thank you for taking on this maintenance task. —C.Fred (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

No objection whatsoever BUT I don't understand what you mean! I will have to go away and research what is meant by WP templates. I can see no reference to a template in the source code. Apologies. GDMorgan (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@GDMorgan: Hi GDMorgan. Wikipedia does not really specific a single style that information that all editors are expected to follow when adding citations to an article. There are actually number of different styles (see WP:CITESTYLE) which are considered OK to use. Wikipedia does, however, stress that the style used throughout the article be consistent and that deference should be given to the style used by the first significant contributor to the article per WP:CITEVAR. So, unless there are technical reasons for changing styles as explained in WP:CS#Generally considered helpful, it is generally consider a good idea to discuss any such change first on the article's talk page to see if there's a consensus for it. It may seem to be a bit of a trivial matter, but Wikipedians can be a funny bunch and some editors see the unilateral changing of citation styles as being a bit disruptive. If you want to see an example of how contentious this can be, take a peek at WT:CITE#RFC: Is a change in citation markup method a change in citation style?

For reference, Wikipedia also does not have preferred variety of English that has to be used for all of its articles (see WP:ENGVAR) and recognizes that their are strong ties (see MOS:TIES and MOS:DATETIES) between certain subjects and certain varieties of English. Since this article is about an Irish cricket team, it safe to assume that it is written in British English ("Irish English"?) as opposed to American English. So, someone coming in and changing all of the British English spellings to American English spellings would be considered disruptive unless there was a consensus or a really good policy/guideline reason for doing so. If you think of a particular citation style as a variety of the "Citation language", then it might be easier to understand how it can easily become an issue between editors.

Citation templates are just one way of formatting references that are added to the article. There various types of templates for various types of citations, and each template contains parameters where specially designed for each bit of information relevant to the source. So, you put everything in its assigned place and let the software dothe rest of the formatting. Some people, however, do not like to use templates and prefer a different style instead. In this particular article there were only two "original" citations and were just in a very simple format, so I don't think switching to templates will be such a big deal as it might be in an article with dozens of citations added by many different editors over an extended period of time.

Anyway, here is an example of what I'm proposing just to make things a little clearer.

1. Original citation added by other editor: <ref>[http://www.cricketleinster.ie/news/statement-from-old-belvedere-cc Statement from Old Belvedere CC regarding the closure of the club]</ref> which looks like Statement from Old Belvedere CC regarding the closure of the club. This is acceptable, but very basic since its better to provide a little more information about the source per WP:CITEHOW to help those trying to fix problems such as link rot, etc. which may arise down the road.
2. Original citation as tweaked by me: <ref>[http://www.cricketleinster.ie/news/statement-from-old-belvedere-cc "Statement from Old Belvedere CC regarding the closure of the club"]. Leinster Cricket Union. 20 December 2012. Retrieved 7 April 2016</ref> which looks like "Statement from Old Belvedere CC regarding the closure of the club". Leinster Cricket Union. 20 December 2012. Retrieved 7 April 2016.
3. Same citation using Template:Cite web: <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cricketleinster.ie/news/statement-from-old-belvedere-cc|title=Statement from Old Belvedere CC regarding the closure of the club|date=20 December 2012|publisher=Leinster Cricket Union|accessdate=7 April 2016}}</ref> which looks like "Statement from Old Belvedere CC regarding the closure of the club". Leinster Cricket Union. 20 December 2012. Retrieved 7 April 2016..

As you can see, there's no real difference in how the last two examples look to the reader, unless they are looking at the article in the editing window. There may be some technical differences as to how the software records the information as Wikidata, but no real visual difference to the reader. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@GDMORGAN: I see you added "List of notable cricketers who coached Belvedere" with this edit to the article. I cannot see the source to verify it so maybe it requires a subscription? I suggest that the source be formatted using Template:Cite news or Template:Cite web if citation templates are to be used. Also, we don't typically use ordinal numbers for date like you've done per MOS:BADDATEFORMAT and it's probably best to stick to one style of writing dates per MOS:DATETIES and WP:DATEUNIFY. I am assuming that since this is an article about an Irish cricket team that British English is preferred. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Notable coaches

It might be a good idea to move most of the information about the notable coaches from the article's lead to a subsection titled "Notable coaches" or "Background" per MOS:LEAD. The lead is really only suppose to summarize significant information which comes later. It's introductory in nature, so too much detail is not really needed. Information in the lead also does not necessarily require citation per WP:CITELEAD, if it just summarizes properly cited information which comes later in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again. I see you have made several comments and suggestions. I will work on all of these but initially I will focus on sorting out the photographs. With hindsight, I am beginning to think that I should have started all of this in the Sandbox. Would that be correct? If I were to start another article, should I begin in the Sandbox and only after it gets general editor approval, publish it? GDMorgan (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

User sandboxes are just places for editors to practice editing, etc. Any test edits you make will only be reflected in the sanboxes editing history and nowhere else. User sandboxes are also generally places where editors can practice in peace since other editors will generally refrain from editing another editor's user sandbox unless they are asked by the editor to do so or their is some serious policy/guideline matter which requires attention. You don't have to practice edits before making them; you can just be bold and edit the article. If you make a mistake, another editor will probably catch it eventually and fix it. Pretty much nothing that we do cannot be undone by another editor if needed.

It's pretty hard to create articles and even experienced editors can make mistakes. All articles are expected to be witten according to Wikipedia's manual of style. There are lots of parts to the MOS which is why you often see lots of little improvements being made to articles over time. Lots of new articles, etc. are directly added to Wikipedia every day, but unfortunately many of these are not up to Wikipedia's standards. Sometimes these are noticed quickly, but other times they may fly under the radar for years before somebody catches them. Stuff that is not up to par may be subject to deletion, so it's generally advised that new editors submit drafts for articles via Wikipedia:Articles for creation. This gives experienced editors the chance to vet the draft and make suggestions on improvements so that it is more in line with the MOS. There's no guarantee that AfC approved drafts will never be deleted, but the odds for survival do seem to be a little better since reviewers only typically approve drafts which satisfy Wikipedia:Notability.

This particular article was created back in May 2012 by a diffrent editor, so you did not create it. It went pretty much unedited until you expanded it. There's nothing wrong with what you did per se, but sometimes it can be a good idea to discuss a major change on the article's talk page to get feedback from other editors and to check if such a change had been discussed before. The article's talk page is sort of like the article's sandbox in this sense because it allows things to be discussed in advance and all the kinks to be worked out before actually making changes to the article itself. We don't own the articles we create or edit, so anything we add to an article can be freely improved upon by another editor. Sometimes this simply means correcting a typo, but other times it can mean completely removing or rewriting everything that was added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I am now in a state of information overload!! I am struggling to take action on your many suggestions. Worse still, I am finding it very difficult to relinquish ownership!! But I am slowly getting to understand the idea of collective effort and do appreciate your input very much. I will start by following your suggestion on the 'coaches' and then get to work on the photos. Finally, as you rightly point out, I did NOT create the article and so, claiming ownership is proof of my poor short term memory. No deceit was intended!! GDMorgan (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries and I don't think anyone was assuming you were trying to be decietful. As I suggested above in a different thread, you don't have to feel like you have to do this all yourself. It's OK to take a break from Wikipedia or simply go work on something else and just watch for awhile to see if improvements are made by others. Also, article creators or the subjects of article do not own the articles they create or which are written about them any more than those who edit such articles, so anyone trying to claim such a thing is going to run in to difficulties editing the article. Finally, you don't have to defer to every suggestion made by another editor (including myself) each time one is made. It's OK to disagree and discuss as long as the discussion remains focused on article content and how relevant policies and guidelines apply and doesn't turn into a commentary about other editors. It's even OK to revert another editor's changes if you feel that they do not comply with relevant policies or guidelines. As long as you assume good faith and explain your reasons either in the edit sum or on the article's talk page, things should work themselves out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Utter Total Frustration

For the record: I give up. I am out of here. I have spent hours and hours of my time on this article - I have followed all the suggestions and comments of various editors. And today I look at the article and it is reduced to nothing by yet another editor/pedant. All the very few photos are gone, as are all the club officers and all the club statistics. Just deleted - no discussion or debate about the content - just zapped. You give some people a little power and they behave like that. If that's the way Wiki works, I don't need the hassle.
Slán.
GDMorgan (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@GDMgone: As I tried to explain in other posts on this talk page, this is generally how Wikipedia articles are improved. Sometimes only minor tweaks are needed and other times more major revisions are required. Discussing edits in advance can be helpful (especially for major revisions), but it is not a requirement. So, instead of calling the editor making such changes a "pedant" (see WP:NPA), it's better to focus on the content of the edits themselves. The two Wikiprojects whose purviews this article fall under (see the top of this talk page) are WikiProject Ireland and WikiProject Cricket, so I posted at WT:IE#Old Belvedere Cricket Club and WT:CRICKET#Old Belvedere Cricket Club to ask members of those projects to assess the article. Dweller responded and made changes that he believed helped improve the article. Personally, I agree with the changes made and believe they help bring the article more in line with Wikipedia's Manual of Style and its various policies/guidelines. If you disagree that these are improvements, then you can revert them if you want or you can ask Dweller to explain why he felt they were needed. I don't recommend the former simply because this is content you essentially added by being bold which was then reverted by another editor; therefore, per WP:BRD it's better to discuss things then try and engage in edit warring by reverting again. DWeller is not only a member of Wikiproject Cricket, he is also an administrator, a bureaucrat, and an oversighter in addition to having a number of featured articles to his credit. In other words, he's a very experienced editor who would not have made the changes he made without a good reason. He left edit sums explaining why he felt the changes were needed, but you can always ask him for more clarification.

You mentioned in this post on Commons that you were "a long time member" of the club. That helps explain the amount of detail you've been adding to the article. Please try and remember that our personal knowledge of a subject is considered to be original research by Wikipedia unless we can provided published reliable sources in support. So, the stuff you personally know to be be true about the club needs to be supported by reliable sources so that it can be verified. In addition, the fact that you were a member of the club might be seen as a conflict-of-interest by Wikipedia. COI of editing is not something expressly prohibited by Wikipedia, but it is something highly discouraged because people who are closely connected to a particular subject often have a hard time writing neutrally about said subject. COI editors tend to (unintentionally) include lots of their personal knowledge or try to shape article content in a way that is not really in accordance with Wikipedia's policy and guidelines; they also tend to focus on a single article or genre of articles which is not wrong per se, but might mean that they are more interested in promoting these subjects than being here to help build an encyclopedia. I suggest you take a look a Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide to familiarize yourself with the kinds of edits COI editors are generally allowed to make.

Finally, you also mentioned in that Commons post that you are also User:Popgdm. You've used both accounts to edit various articles (sometimes even the same article) which is something which is not really allowed per WP:MULTIPLE. While I believe your intentions were good and you were not trying deceive anyone by doing this, it can be seen as suspicious by other editors and you should be aware that Wikipedia only recognizes the use of multiple accounts under certain conditions. It looks like you've decided to stick with "GDMgone" as your main account, so you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Clean start for reference so as to avoid any misunderstandings down the road. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)