User talk:Lovecel

Welcome!

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:

Learn more about editing

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:

Get help at the Teahouse

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

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

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)[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 TALK} 06:31, 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 TALK} 17:37, 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 TALK} 20:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the section at Talk:Nazi archaeology where you posted

Besides being utter nonsense. talk pages are not for discussion of the subject of an article. Doug Weller talk 06:55, 30 July 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.

Doug Weller talk 06:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Scientific Blackpill (August 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Devonian Wombat was:

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Incel#"Red pill" and "black pill". Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Article passes WP:GNG, but there is not sufficient information here that can't be covered at the parent page. Also, the term 'Scientific Blackpill' does not appear to be commonly used as such, instead this ideology is referred to simply as "Blackpill".

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Scientific Blackpill and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Devonian Wombat (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lovecel! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Devonian Wombat (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]