User talk:Arywiki

Welcome!
Hi Arywiki! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing!

No vandalism
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

I strongly believe that what I did wasn't vandalism at all. The page that I edited has many parts that are similar to a tabloid, poor references (scientifically invalid) and misleading information. For instance, in the table it's mentioned in the last row "Buildings: Xia Ke Hotel in Haining", but there's no such hotel in reality! It has been only conceptualized in a competition but the design has never been constructed! Other info includes huge numbers in $ that only seems like advertisement, doesn't even look professional. (FYI, I am a researcher in architecture and urban planning in Europe, and I regularly review articles for a few research journals). Arywiki (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue is not the "building" section in the infobox, which is still confirmed by the article's sources, but the fact that you deleted large portions of the article that included reliable sources, using, for instance "Removed poorly referenced material/ material supported with no reference" and "Commercial info about a living person, and references to unreliable sources deleted", as a justification, when that wasn't true. "I strongly believe that what I did wasn't vandalism at all," I don't understand if you are using irony here, but if not, it's only you who knows whether it was vandalism or a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's requirements and definitions. Your knowledge is certainly appreciated here, but it doesn't change the reliability of this article's sources nor what these sources say.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

That wasn't irony. I strongly believe all parts that I deleted were/are problematic. And some parts have (semi-)valid references but the message has no significance other than promotion; i.e., they don't really matter in contemporary architecture world or history. Let's review one by one: 1. Buildings: Xia Ke Hotel in Haining (in the infobox). There's no such building in reality. That's a proposal for a building, not a real building!

(2) This part is promotional: "In 2018, Juričić won a €100 million tender for the Xia Ke complex in Haining, China, becoming the first Croatian in history to win an international tender of this size with his own project." Please notice that the page is about an architect, not a contractor! Tenders have nothing to do with architects or designers. This only can function as self-promotion for the living person or his team.

(3) The following part is written by the living person himself! It's his own bio page on the architonic.com commercial website! "Juričić graduated from the Iuav University of Venice, and got his MSc with excellence from the University of Applied Arts of Vienna".

(4) The following part is exaggerated, and only claimed by the living person himself (also notice that the 1st source is edited by the living person himself - read below the page in Archdaily); moreover, he has been the curator of the work, not the author or presenter!: "which at the time was said to be one of the world's largest and most complex 3D-fabricated structures".

(5) The following part doesn't have any significance other than promotion. There are many projects in every city on this planet with similar costs/budgets or areas in square meters! Who cares, really?!: "In 2018 he became the author of a €100 million leisure complex in Haining, China. The entire complex covers 200,000 m2, and the hotel complex about 35,000 m2, with a cultural center dedicated to Haining native writer Jin Yong. Yong inspired the construction of the complex, which is informed by wuxia."

(6) What's the point of this, similarly?: "Xia Ke means "ode to gallantry" in Chinese, and is the title of one of Yang's most famous works, a "much-filmed martial arts epic" that bears some resemblance to Shakespeare's Twelfth Night."

(7) Again promotion here. As mentioned earlier, there is a fundamental difference between an architect and a contractor; architects aren't supposed to win a tender, and even if someone does it's more weird and unprofessional than normal and creditable!: "Juričić is the first Croatian architect to win a tender of these proportions with his own project."

(8) and the last part also sounds like a resume or a visit card to promote themselves or present to a client; their address! Again, what's the point? : "He currently lives between Pula and Shanghai."

In the end, I'm very sorry that I spent so much time reviewing this only with the aim of sticking to Wikipedia's mission and goals to keep articles scientifically valuable and remove tabloid materials from them. I really wished that the article had been written well but I found so many problems, and I did my best. Sometimes the best is to remove an article. Ask professional architecture researchers or professors to read this. I'm sure most of them agree with me. This article deserves deletion. Arywiki (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * You seem to lack an understanding of Wikipedia's policies and "mission and goals," as you called them, and to have a problem with the subject of this article (In the end, I'm very sorry that I spent so much time reviewing this. This article deserves deletion. Who cares, really?!), that is what is being described in the sources (i.e. this particular architect). Please read Policies and guidelines, the article, its sources and history.


 * Don't focus on the information in the infobox which is taken from the article supported by reliable sources, including its section broadly titled buildings. Focus instead on what you did, on what you deleted, with the reliable sources included in it and on the reason why you did this. As for your points specifically, everything sticks to what reported in the sources, including the part you call "promotional". The source's author emphasized Juricic's monetary achievement as a Croatian, being the first Croatian to win a tender of these proportions. "the following part is written by the living person himself! ", no, it's not, the only thing (likely) written by the person himself used in this article is the name of the university from which he graduated, but not the fact that he graduated or what degree he has (which is support by reliable sources). It is used only marginally for this specification, please see sources and the article's history. "The following part is exaggerated, and only claimed by the living person himself [...] moreover, he has been the curator of the work, not the author or presenter!", and what does the article say? Also, wrong, the subject was indeed the author, which is specified in the sources you didn't read or didn't want to understand (in the article it's not specified because it's obvious from context); "The following part doesn't have any significance other than promotion. There are many projects in every city on this planet with similar costs/budgets or areas in square meters! Who cares, really?!" please, try and refrain from such disparaging comments in the future. As repeated several times, what stated in the article sticks to sources, which are reliable, and this is what matters, not your personal opinion of the subject of this article or of the importance of the Croatian people's achievements. I won't even comment the other points including "and the last part also sounds like a resume or a visit card to promote themselves or present to a client; their address!: "He currently lives between Pula and Shanghai!"".--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, you might know the regulations of Wikipedia better than me (I usually review academic and scientific journals with editors who at least hold a PhD in architecture/urban planning AND are professors at universities). I sincerely ask you invite one of the well experienced editors of Wikipedia who's an expert in architecture (with a master's degree or PhD in architecture) to judge what I have deleted was worth reading in that particular article or not. Not anything previously published in a so-called reliable source (whose reliability can also be questionable at least to a certain degree) is worth getting republished in a new context especially about a living person. Arywiki (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * "Not anything previously published in a so-called reliable source (whose reliability can also be questionable at least to a certain degree) is worth getting republished in a new context especially about a living person", I honestly don't even understand what you are talking about here, and please, stop lying about the sources' reliability. "to judge what I have deleted was worth reading[...]" You are continuing to express your personal opinion, which is completely irrelevant here. Also, I advise you stop using disparaging terms or writing words in capital letters, which is unnecessary and somebody here might not like so much (personally, I don't mind). Just so you know, what you did, deleting material supported by sources (and the sources) is considered a deliberate attempt to damage the article, and so Wikipedia, so try and don't do it anymore with this or any other article. You can discuss whether a given article is "worth reading" and eventually express your distaste for it with your friends, not by deleting it. Thanks for the understanding and good luck.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not referring to my personal taste. What I'm referring to is basic principles of a field of knowledge, art and engineering, which is called "architecture". And, the only thing I asked in my previous reply was to invite experts/professors in architecture to judge what I deleted was fair or not. Arywiki (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, you cannot delete according to what your or any expert's in the world consideration of what the sources describe is, nor on their idea of the basic principles of architecture. Your opinion doesn't matter, it means nothing here. If you delete material that includes reliable sources in the articles I'm watching again, you will get a third warning against vandalism.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

1. So you mean whatever written in any so-called reliable source can be put in a Wikipedia article regardless of what it means with relation to the article's subject?

2. In case you're wrong (with respect to some or all parts I've deleted), how can I ask for help from a third editor who's well experienced in editing Wikipedia pages in the field of architecture to judge between us (you and I)? Arywiki (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean that you cannot delete articles because you don't like the subject, their achievements, or whatever the article says. By continuing to waste your and my time here, you won't change the guidelines or the facts (what the sources say), which is why I don't advise you to ask for help to another editor, also considering your actions and words. I really have used a lot of time to try and explain things to you.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I also mentioned multiple times that I'm not referring to my taste. Now you mention "you don't like the subject, their achievements, or whatever". Just to let you know, you're wrong. I know this Croatian architect to some extents and I personally like some their works but this article has been poorly written no matter who or what I like or not. Those references which are more or less reliable (e.g., Archdaily) are not about the same subject as this article. In my previous comment I asked you two concrete questions, why don't you simply reply to my questions? You mean it is impossible that you make a mistake? I said let's a third editor also have a look at the article. What's your problem with this suggestion? Arywiki (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Then wait for a third editor or ask for another opinion, you can even canvass for all I care. Remember to show them your actions, good luck and have a nice day.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, it seems you had written the article at first. Hopefully that's not why you got so emotional as you faced criticism. Arywiki (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)