Talk:The Hideout Inn

Discography

I removed the discography section per the MOS/Music, which says Pages on artists, groups or works should have recording and discography sections as appropriate. Hideout is a venue, not an artist or work, and neither publishes nor produces music itself. Therefore, the discography section is inappropriate.

If there are a few particularly well-known songs (well known as in, known outside of chicago) about the Hideout then perhaps those recordings and information about them could be included in a "Media appearances" section, similar to what's in the Horseshoe Tavern article. It's clear, though, that not all of the recordings in the discography section are actually well-known. Including all of them creates a promotional tone. Ca2james (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ca2james:

You know nothing about the significance or history of the Hideout. It is not just a venue. That is what I am starting to establish on the page. Yet by deleting the content there is no room to improve the content. Yet again, you do this.

Beyond the fact that YET AGAIN you are stalking my edits. You continue to harass me and negatively impact the pages I work on and feel free to delete tons of constructive content which took ages to generate. I have asked you repeatedly to Assume Good Faith and out of courtesy to me given our consistently unpleasant interactions on Wikipedia NOT edit pages I am significantly improving. Yet you refuse to stop. You have a pattern here, and you acknowledge you follow my edits, but won't stop. Even when I ask you to AGF and stop. And you do so with impunity. It's unacceptable. Please STOP. I refuse to go into this again. You just need to stop.

If the goal is to stop me from editing, then that is what will happen. But I refuse to allow this to happen yet again. Driving editors off pages: It's not okay. -- BrillLyle (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

This is an article you were working on? If I'd known that I wouldn't have touched it. I'm not following you. Whenever I've knowingly come to an article you were working on, I was upfront about it. At no other time have I followed you. Please stop falsely accusing me.

On to content, and I'm not backing down from this. This is a venue where music is played, not a publisher or producer of music. A discography section is wholly inappropriate. Please can we talk about how to handle this? If you are not going to budge on your view, we can look at getting a third opinion to resolve this. Either way, we must come to some sort of resolution here. Ca2james (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

BrillLyle, how about we try to compromise here and find some criteria to list recordings made at the Hideout? For example, we could include only those recordings that are specifically about the Hideout or that have received significant media coverage. Or maybe some other criteria? Currently it appears there's no criteria other than everything you can find, which I do know is a lot of work; unfortunately the list appears to be an indiscriminate collection and so all that work reads as promotional. I realize that we have differing views on this type of content and I think if we work together and balance those views against each other we can make a better, more focused article. Ca2james (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ca2james: I'm not falsely accusing you of anything. You admitted it. You constantly go into pages I am working on and delete masses of information. Of all the pages on Wikipedia you just happen to stumble upon the ones I'm significantly improving and working on so diligently. Sorry. I don't buy it.

Beside the fact that you are 1000% wrong about the Hideout. Have you been there? Do you know its history, and its significance to the city of Chicago and it's music scene and surrounding community? I have been there. I know people who have worked there. I understand the history of the Hideout. You're wrong it's not "just" a venue. And if you would leave me alone enough to work on the page, I will establish that. Key to doing this is to have the selected discography there. It is just one part of the significance of the Hideout. But if you just randomly delete this content, I am not able to do this editing. How does that make sense. It's wrong, and short-sighted and yes, again, destructive and pointless. I beg you to walk away. It is the right thing to do. You are doing damage here, and you are yet again pushing me off pages that need content. Content I am happy to add and curate, but not under the conditions of your scrutiny.

How about no. How about NO compromise when it comes to the wholesale deletion of a huge amount of information.

No we don't need a third party. What we need is for me to be allowed to add content. Maybe other editors can constructively assist to support the discography as well as the other community work the Hideout does. But no. No need for another opinion. This is not needed. I'm not done with the page! You are cutting it off at the knees by this short-sighted deletionism.

As far as criteria, I've only got partial bare bones in there. I've done hours of work and I haven't even scraped the surface of what the entry should be. You really need to stop this. Assume Good Faith with my track record of editing. And leave this page alone.

I have little confidence you will (a) hear this information and (b) agree to my request here. I am mystified that you continue to do this over and over again, you harass me and stalk me and delete content you don't understand or that needs more citations and work. So what to do? The answer is to stop what YOU are doing. Leave me alone. I'm tired of saying how much this exhausts me. -- BrillLyle (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ca2james: You wrote: "This is an article you were working on? If I'd known that I wouldn't have touched it." -- There's the solution. Don't touch it. Walk away. Do the right thing. -- BrillLyle (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I started off deleting, but I came here to the Talk page to discuss it. Since then, if you read my posts, you'll see I've been actively trying to figure out how to make the content better, lately by trying to work out criteria for inclusion. I get that you have strong negative feelings towards me but I wish you'd talk here about the content. Ca2james (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

You have a proven history and pattern of harassment here. This is an acknowledged bias you have. These problems you have cease to be about the content at a certain point. You illustrate you are incapable of Assuming Good Faith. And you illustrate this is an ongoing pattern especially where my editing efforts are concerned. You need to recuse yourself. This is obviously not about the content. It happens way too often, and in a very fixed pattern. Do the right thing. Just move away.

Furthermore, you say that you would not edit pages if you knew I have significantly contributed to them. You said it here. I thought you agreed to this, to move on. But instead it is like you just wait a little while and then go in to strip pages of legitimate content, especially pages I have painstakingly contributed to. I am not sure how that is improving Wikipedia. We have had this conversation over and over again. I am exhausted from it. Can you get some help or something -- or when you are doing your editing where you regularly strip content, maybe look and see who the editor is and if it's me, just skip it. I disagree with your method of editing as it seems to be focused and fixated on deletionism, but at minimum follow through with what you pledged to do, which is to leave me alone. 04:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

BrillLyle, I said if I'd known this was "your" article I wouldn't have done anything, and I also said I wasn't going to let this go. I'm allowed to edit here and I'm not going to let you bully me away; you also don't get to WP:OWN the article. I understand that you dislike me but we don't have to like each other to work together.

You reverted my changes wholesale but did not give content-related reasons for doing so. So let's talk about the content. I'm prepared to give reasons for each change I made. If I do that, will you discuss the content with me? We both want an informative encyclopaedic article, so let's start from there. Ca2james (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

First off, let's not be ridiculous. This is not "my" article. I resent the implication of you even saying this. I welcome collaborative editing that is constructive. I love the fact that articles can be significantly improved by many editors. I don't own articles. That's not my perspective at all. What I don't welcome is (a) harassment (b) stalking of an editor's edits and (c) destroying articles with an established pattern of deleting content.

Secondly, let's be clear about who is bullying who. You are the one following my edits, deleting content that I've contributed that is solid, and bullying me by fixation and bias. YOU are the bully.

You just said the actual problem: We are not "working" together here. What you are doing in your edit history is not working together -- it's working against. It's not personal, what your edit behavior is. It's fact. So don't go on and on about us not needing to be friends here, or thinking this is some sort of workplace environment. That's just you trying to dress up your own guilty behavior with some sort of pseudo work talk. It's hooey.

Looking at your edit history it's clear that you follow the editing I do. I don't know what your problem is. We have discussed this ad nauseam. I had hoped you would Assume Good Faith and move on. You said you would, yet you refused to stop fixating on pages I work on.

Okay, let's talk about the content you deleted. Why did you do that? What motivated the edits you made where you went through and deleted swathes of content. Why do you feel the need to do that? You weaken the article. The content didn't need to be reshaped. And your edits weakened the article, which is now in good shape, thanks to all of the content I contributed.

Let's talk about the fact that you do this regularly. There are millions of pages on Wikipedia that need content added and need to be improved. Why do you go onto a page that I've worked on for days and feel the need to rework these contributions. It's rude. It's unnecessary. And it doesn't improve the page. If you were ADDING content that would be one thing. But why are all of your edits deleting content and making judgments about things that you know nothing about. You can use wiki rulez to your heart's content to justify anything, this is a truism on Wikipedia. But in a final evaluation, why do you go onto pages basically after the fact of them getting vastly improved, and feel the need to destroy another editor's work by deleting content. It is so hostile and so unproductive.

So no, I don't want to be your workmate and basically do some sort of sick ritual where I defend the content that I have contributed to a page. Because in essence that is what you want to do. No. This is not collaborative. It does not improve the entry in any way. It is just some sort of issue you seem to continue to display when you edit pages these pages like this. Pages I just happen to have significantly improved. It's not really a head scratcher. There must be a positive result for you in doing this, but it's rude, it's harassment, it's bullying, and I am so tired of this conversation.

So let's not. Okay. Move on like you said you would. -- BrillLyle (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm honestly not following you. I was up front and honest about the times I did, and why, and I haven't intentionally done it since. I try to avoid you like the plague because I find working with you to be difficult - but working with people you don't get along with is part and parcel of both life and Wikipedia.

When someone reverts someone else's edits for no content-based reason, it comes across as OWNership. Reworking text and moving things around is allowed and is a part of collaborating on Wikipedia. I get that you disagree with my approach and that you don't like me - you've said all that before, at length. Please, instead of telling me yet again how much of a menace I am or how I'm destroying Wikipedia with my evil deletionist ways or how you really hate that I'm here, focus on the content.

I'm on my mobile right now but I'll put together a line by line list of all the content I changed along with why I made the change in the (later) morning so we can talk about it. Ca2james (talk) 06:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, by that logic when someone consistently shows up on pages that have been somewhat derelict or neglected and are in need of improvement and additional content -- and have been updated and significantly improved -- but then an editor (you) goes in after the fact and feels the need to delete content that was added, what is THAT?!? You do this all the time. With pages that for some reason I seem to be the editor working on updating them. Coincidence? You can't seem to stop. This is your problem, not mine. I refuse to get into a discussion over content to work out some sort of issues you have that you are working out on Wikipedia. Because at the end of the day this is just creepy and weird. I have encouraged you to get help because this fixation you have on my edits is very unhealthy. You are targeting me, you refuse to stop following my edits, and you refuse even more when you "realize" they are pages I've improved.

I refuse to discuss content with you. The twelfth time we have had the same interaction it is clear this is not about the content. You have problems. Please get help. I am not interested in engaging with you on this until you address this. Because this is not about the content, you have illustrated that very clearly. You are parasitically following my edits then impinging your pseudo-Wiki Rulez / community of editor (misnomer) deletionism like this. It actually then completely stops being about content and becomes about YOU needlessly impinging your "editing style" onto a page that doesn't need it. It hurts Wikipedia. It illustrates the problems between editors. But looking at this from a rational perspective obviously doesn't work. Because these are your constructs and rules you are inflicting. So I'm going decline to participate in your issues here. I will revert your edits because they are not about the content. They are about you working your issues out on Wikipedia. At there are limits. No.

By saying you are going to do a "line by line list" you illustrate the issue. Please don't do this. I have asked you to stop. You have said you will stop. But yet again, whatever issue you have make it so you can't stop. Get help. AGF for once. Take a WikiBreak. I'm not going to do this with you yet again. -- BrillLyle (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Pages where you have exhibited this behavior (either deleting content and/or following my edits)....

• Jenny Lumet
• Shore Fire Media
• Ann Powers
• James Dolan (computer security expert)
• Emma González
• Catalina Cruz (politician)
• Marcia Gay Harden
• Ochs-Sulzberger family
• The Hideout Inn

-- BrillLyle (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of changes

BrillLyle, as promised, I'm opening up discussion about my changes. I was going to go line by line but for the most part, the changes I made were to remove duplicate text and reorder the text so that, to me, it flowed better. Whether that kind of change is an improvement or not is of course subjective, and I'm not beholden to those particular changes. However, there are a few changes that I made that I do think are necessary so I've focused on those and they're below. Hopefully we can find some compromises here. Ca2james (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Lede

The Hideout is notable for being a music venue first (that's how people know if it) and this is what should appear in the first sentence where notability is claimed. The source for the community center wording calls the Hideout a "gathering place" which has a different connotation than "community center" (a more formal phrase). Also, since the gathering olace function is detailed further down in the lede, it shouldn't be part of the first sentence.

Also, it's known for many, many more types of music than rock music so I don't know why only rock music is mentioned in the lede. Ca2james (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Katie Tuten's father

Katie Tuten's father is not a well-known figure and, per WP:NPF, should not be named. I think the removal of his name should stand unless you can demonstrate that he is a public figure (I couldn't find any). Ca2james (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Favia ownership

I looked but there are no cites for the information regarding the Favia family's ownership of the Hideout or the construction of the back part of the house in 1954. I don't have access to the books but I assume you do and the information is in there? I added citation needed tags to those sentences, and unless you can add citations for that text, those tags should stand. Ca2james (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

North Branch Industrial Corridor

The original text focuses on the mayor as being behind all of the changes but reliable sources show that the mayor is working with other city councilors (I added those sources as refs). Can we tweak the wording to remove the focus on the mayor? Even if the mayor is the evil mastermind behind the plan (which the text implies, to me), that's something that should be discussed in the Chicago or NBIC article, if there is one; it's WP:COATRACK here. Ca2james (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)