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 TALK07:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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 TALK06:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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 TALK17:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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 TALK20:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
You are no fun. In the future I will simply silently appreciate the schizos I find instead of alerting the languishing gerontocracy to remove them. Someday the iPad babies will inherit this coven and on that day the asylum doors shall never be locked again. LOVECEL🤍17:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the
arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic
here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.