User talk:Tehdef

February 2015
Hello, I'm Soetermans. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Assassin's Creed Unity without 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; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the 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. T / C 20:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel pretty strongly you did make a mistake here. I left plenty of information in my edit notes. So you clearly just decided to disregard them. Furthermore, I also left a message on the Unity Talk Page to get discussion moving, which was completely ignored, so the edits were made. In the future, you should perform your due diligence to ensure that you are taking the necessary steps to review the talk page to debate changes. I simply removed content from the page that did not need to exist as it was from a potentially biased source who levied their subjective views on the topic. Simply put, it was a Cnet Journalists opinion that held zero factual ground, or even anything close to what could have been the problem. Ubisoft or former Ubisoft members will know best as to why genders were not present, and some Cnet Journalist can only speculate. Wikipedia is not a place for speculation, and you should be more than familiar with that having been apart of Wiki for as many years as you have.
 * Hi Tehdef,
 * Yes, I'm an experienced editor, so please don't assume that I've "clearly just decided to disregard them". Assume good faith as I do in regards to your edits. Your message at the talk page wasn't ignored, it simply wasn't noticed. Different thing.
 * Maybe you've been editing before, either anonymous or under another account, but if you're new to Wikipedia, please read the guidelines. You are correct that there is no place for speculation, but there is certainly room for other opinions and definitely for criticism. If you disagree with it or feel that it is too strong, you can add new information from other reliable and notable sources for a new balance of tone. It is never okay just to remove stuff, saying it is biased. Criticism by its nature is subjective, as are reviews. You removed these two opinions:


 * The Escapists Shamus Young wrote that reworking Assassin's Creeds wide array of complex animations for a female character model would take considerable work, but concluded that "This has nothing to do with how hard or easy it is to put females in the game, or how much it would cost, or how difficult it is to do mo-cap these days. Ubisoft doesn't want to put females in their games, they have no idea if it's something the audience wants, and they are avoiding any move that might shed some light on the subject."
 * Conversely, Michelle Starr of CNet made note of the valid technical challenges a female character would present, such as their different skeleton structure and the environmental factors, such as how NPCs would interact with them, and said, "the issue is not that Ubisoft is lying about how much work it would require to add a female player character – it's that the idea was considered unworthy of those resources in the first place."
 * Because of the controversy surrounding the absence of female avatars and Ubisoft's initial response to the criticism, these two have another opinion on the matter. Young says Ubisoft doesn't want female avatars, while Starr says it wasn't worth spending money on. These two are both notable and reliable sources. It's not speculation or guessing, it's an opinion. And that's completely valid.
 * I'm not going to revert again right now, so I'll leave it up to you to do what you want with the article. Maybe rephrasing or trimming could help, or adding other opinions on the matter. Did Ubisoft respond to these accusations specifically? Or, if section sizes are the issue, you can always expand on those. --Soetermans. T / C 10:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate your insight on this, I feel like this "controversy" is given undue weight on the article. It is nearly the largest entry in an article about a game, lending more information as to the lack of females, which is the choice by the developer, and has been clearly explained why. Just because random journalists don't agree, doesn't make their information news worthy, especially since it's all subjective and complete speculation. Wikipedia should be focused on providing NPOV, and the personal insights of journalists with an agenda does not classify as neutral, despite what anyone may think. That's why I removed the quote from Michelle Starr, as she is speaking purely from a subjective point of view. She has no idea if the idea was considered unworthy in the first place, so her comments are purely subjective, and wildly speculative. She is not an expert,and has no inside information as to why Ubisoft chose to not include females. None of her bio's include any game development expertise. This is an encyclopedia, and should be treated as such. Subjective quotes and references that reflect negatively on the NPOV of Wikipedia damage the integrity of the article, and I still feel strongly this quote should be removed. There are plenty of other quotes on here that speak directly to the potential thoughts of Ubisoft as former developers, as well as many quotes from Ubisoft leaders helping to explain their thought process. We don't need extra references from sources speculating and offering subjective thoughts.
 * Furthermore, I didn't remove the Escapist quote. I only removed the Cnet quote. If there was an Escapist quote, it was removed before I saw it.