User talk:Xarax81

Your Recent Edits to Genocide of Indigenous Peoples
Hi, I'm Hobomok,

I'm a bit confused regarding your recent edits to Genocide of indigenous peoples, or, rather reversions. I come here rather than engaging in an Edit war. The edits we seem to be disagreeing on are not yours--they are another user's. I notice that your account is relatively new, so I wanted to explain why I am doing what I am doing.

A separate user removed long-standing material from the article. If that user wanted to do that, the usual route to take is to go to the page's talk page, especially once their removal has been objected to. There have been discussions about the Spanish and United States sections of the page in the past, and it was decided that the section in question would be kept.

If that user would like to remove the media in question, a discussion should be started on the talk page. It is on the original user, or you if you would like to remove that section, to open discussion about the content they, or you, would like to remove when such removal is objected to. It is not the responsibility of the user who reverted them, especially when that section has been discussed in the past. That user did not do so, and has not objected to the reversion I made. If you have an issue with that reversion, please go to the talk page and discuss it there.--Hobomok (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Hobomok it is very simple. There were two unconnected edits you reverted in one go. One of them mine, one of them by someone else. The other editor in question gave a concise explanation of their edit, I may not have since my edit was minor and pretty straightforward. One does not revert edits simply because versions are stable, because they are not familiar with the editor in question or because they want to preserve "their" version. One does not demand edits be explained first in the talk page and one does not revert an edit unless with a content related reason. The justifications you were using were invalid. For example, you need to explain why you think that image should stay. And you need to explain why you disagree with my minor edit. Otherwise, you turn wikipedia articles into trenches. Again, I have directed you to the relevant policies regarding reversals. Do read them carefully and try to be careful avoid reverting other editors using non-arguments. If possible try avoiding trigger-reaction reversals because you consider yourself gatekeeper for said articles. I hope that has been a good enough explanation of my interaction with you on this said article. If you spend much of your time reverting other people on wikipedia, you are going about things wrong. Xarax81 (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, I am coming to you in good faith here, as I said, so as to not engage in an edit war. I also pointed toward archived discussions on the talk page r/t the sections that were reverted, wherein the current information in those sections, which were reverted, were kept. The editor in question decided to Be bold, which is great! However, because there is a disagreement, that editor, or you, need to open discussion on the talk page r/t why those sections should be removed, because it has been kept previously and there is now disagreement. It is on the person who would like to change the long-standing section to make that argument. A user cannot simply make large-scale edits of long-standing material and then when they are objected to ask the objector to explain themselves. It is the responsibility of the editor who made the initial edits to open conversation on the talk page. You seem to be well-versed in Wikipedia policy, especially for a new user, which is great! However, per the guidelines on Be Bold and Edit warring pages, long-standing discussions of controversial subjects should be taken into account. As I pointed out previously, discussion of these subjects have taken place on the page's talk page previously (here: Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples/Archive_6 among other places), so there is a history here, and the areas in question were kept for a reason. As such, if you would like to enter that conversation, by all means, it is welcomed! However, it should be done on the talk page and not in edit summaries.
 * In terms of your minor edit, I disagree with it because the previous version read more clearly. "Examples," reads more clearly than "examples given." This is a minor c/e. I do not do it do disparage you or be rude. I just did it because the previous way, in my mind, read more easily.
 * For the record, I do not view myself as a "gate-keeper." Rather, I object to removal of long-standing material that has been discussed previously, at length, without discussion. All that I ask for is discussion on the talk page in-line with Wikipedia policy. Please do that.--Hobomok (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)