User talk:Lovecel
Welcome![edit]
Hi Lovecel! I would like 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:
Happy editing! — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
June 2024[edit]
Hello, I'm Soetermans. I noticed that you recently removed content from Hearts of Iron IV without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Neither the article originally linked nor the generic wiki page on them refer to them as having committed "atrocities", which is a claim that clearly needs substantiation. Why not just reword it instead of full revert? Lovecel (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Your edit summary was "removed unsupported editorializing". With your edit, you removed the bit and the source used. In the piece, I read for instance "The Deus Vult mod maintains the spirit of the meme: it’s over-the-top, zealous, full of genocidal fantasies of religious and racial purity." If you think a genocide is not an atrocity, why not, well, just reword it from atrocity to genocide instead of removing it altogether? Changing a word is fine, removing a bit and claiming it's not supported isn't the right move. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's not about whether or not I believe it mate. WP:DEATHS clearly requires a conviction to refer to something as a homicide, but a video game article about something almost a thousand years before international law and courts even existed is enough to call it genocide? It's clearly editorialized, nobody believes this about anything else. Can you imagine if I tried to edit Caesar's military campaign in Gaul to be a genocide? It's absurd on its face. Just let me know what you won't revert though o merciful master. Lovecel (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- There is no need for that kind of tone. I do not follow your reasoning. We're talking about video game mod. Kotaku is a reliable source (see WP:VG/RS), they say it is controversial. That's it. There is no editorialising whatsoever. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- I went looking under reliable sources and could not find Kotaku there. It is under situational, with a note "editors have noted instances of low-quality reporting in preceding years—so articles should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis". Perhaps it was moved since you replied? Regardless, I have no interest in fighting, as I already said sincerely, what do you think is a fair compromise which would not need reverting? Lovecel (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Under situational, it states: "News posts from Kotaku between 2010 and 2022 are considered reliable, although editors are cautioned of blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance". Sadly, Kotaku is no longer the quality it used to be, but the piece referenced was from 2019.
- If you feel there's an issue with the phrasing (atrocity to genocide?) or something different, trim it somewhat, feel free! But don't throw out the baby with the WP:BATHWATER, the Kotaku bit is valuable because it mentions controversial mods. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- I went looking under reliable sources and could not find Kotaku there. It is under situational, with a note "editors have noted instances of low-quality reporting in preceding years—so articles should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis". Perhaps it was moved since you replied? Regardless, I have no interest in fighting, as I already said sincerely, what do you think is a fair compromise which would not need reverting? Lovecel (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- There is no need for that kind of tone. I do not follow your reasoning. We're talking about video game mod. Kotaku is a reliable source (see WP:VG/RS), they say it is controversial. That's it. There is no editorialising whatsoever. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's not about whether or not I believe it mate. WP:DEATHS clearly requires a conviction to refer to something as a homicide, but a video game article about something almost a thousand years before international law and courts even existed is enough to call it genocide? It's clearly editorialized, nobody believes this about anything else. Can you imagine if I tried to edit Caesar's military campaign in Gaul to be a genocide? It's absurd on its face. Just let me know what you won't revert though o merciful master. Lovecel (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Your edit summary was "removed unsupported editorializing". With your edit, you removed the bit and the source used. In the piece, I read for instance "The Deus Vult mod maintains the spirit of the meme: it’s over-the-top, zealous, full of genocidal fantasies of religious and racial purity." If you think a genocide is not an atrocity, why not, well, just reword it from atrocity to genocide instead of removing it altogether? Changing a word is fine, removing a bit and claiming it's not supported isn't the right move. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)