User:Symmachus Auxiliarus/manual talk

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!  CatcherStorm    talk   21:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your reversion
You reverted an edit I made to Impeachment of Donald Trump. This edit was discussed beforehand on the talk page. Your edit overturned the unanimous conclusion of three editors, and the reasoning doesn't make sense to me. I've renewed the subject on the Talk page so that you can better explain why you think your position is correct. I'll refrain from further edits until there's a consensus.

Talk:Impeachment of Donald Trump

Davy (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , apologies for responding to this so late. I’ve been ridiculously busy for the last few days, and if I’ve been on Wikipedia, I was reading, not editing. But I did read the appropriate threads. Give me a bit of time to respond. Thanks for being genuinely patient. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Per our discussion
Here are the instructions for the project. (Catalogue of processed dates is the userpage to which the instructions are the talkpage.)

Thanks for being willing to help. DS (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course. Thank you. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Late ping
FYI, this did not generate a notification (ping). For a notification to be generated, it must be added in the same edit as a valid signature. FMI: Help:Notifications. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  09:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Reversion of my edit
In your reversion of my edit on its ok to be white, you stated that I gave no reason in my edit summary for the changes I made, I clearly gave a reason for my changes. second, you stated I made a "removal of referenced information", I clearly stated that I "removed citations without proof", if you had read the articles that I removed you'de know they gave no proof for the claim that the slogan was used/spread by neo-nazis and the alt-right, although I'm sure it was. third, you stated that my changes were not constructive, I removed some of the biases in the articles, as well as removing citations to articles with no proof for the claims being cited, I believe I greatly contributed to the neutrality of the article, which is constructive to the overall neutrality of Wikipedia which all good editors strive for. fourth and final you said that the content I changed had a general consensus among editors, I'de like to cite comments: 3, 11, 18, I think these are all in agreement with my changes. also even if there was a general consensus among editors that does not negate the truth, and the fact the article was very biased in its writing. thank you 龙王岗 (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I should clairify first of all that the caution I gave you was a boilerplate “canned” edit. That’s what it says at the w-2 level. I realize it wasn’t totally applicable to this situation, but part of it certainly was. You removed reliable referenced material, and didn’t seek consensus for a controversial change. As far as your other point, the source claims as much, and is a reliable source with editorial control. They would have presumably investigated any such claims and done their due diligence in such an article. Most articles don’t give a point-by-point elucidation of their “evidence”, if this is something that is general knowledge, which as you intimate yourself, falls under that category.


 * I’m sure there are several sources talking about the use of the phrase by Neo-Nazis and other such groups of people; in fact, I know that there are several of these cited later in the article. This isn’t unusual. Lastly, it has also been discussed before on the talk page. Always check archives and such. While I don’t agree personally that there are such biases easily detected within the article, I will state that biased sources are allowed to be used as long as they report accurately, though only within reason. But that isn’t the case here. The lead is just summarizing the information in the article body, and the body generally reflecting reliable sources.


 * Wikipedia is very biased toward reliable sources, and I don’t know of any reliable sources that refute this information Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

July 2020
Hello, I'm TJRC. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 51st state, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. I want to emphasize: if you do have sources, please re-add your text with proper sourcing; it would be a good addition if only it were sourced properly. TJRC (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , the citation for the latter claim (American Samoa) was already in the pre-existing reference, which appeared after the sentence. Did you check the source? The sourcing for the first claim (Puerto Rico) is in the wikilinked 1993 referendum article; I just hadn’t added it yet. But both of these were easily verifiable. For uncontroversial edits not having to do with BLP, it’s generally good practice to use a CN tag, rather than deleting it outright. Please revert yourself. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WRT American Samoa, I did check that reference, just in case it supported your edit (but I note that you didn't update the accessdate= to indicate you were relying on it), and do not see the support you suggest. Can you be more specific?
 * I disagree with your opinion on best practices for uncited material. For material that's been in an article for some time, I agree flagging it and giving a chance for a source to materialize is appropriate. But when you're fortunate enough to catch the unsourced material as it's being added, it's much better to ask the editor who added it -- who presumably had access to some source -- to correct the problem using the source they presumably have at hand. TJRC (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being patient. As far as the American Samoan reference, it’s a bit hard to find. It’s only two sentences, about 3/4ths a ways down the webpage. I’ll include the quote in my subsequent edit summary, and/or I’ll refresh myself on adding a quoted piece to the reference, I didn’t add an access date because, to be honest, it’s been a while since I’ve done so. I usually add new references and let the bot(s) so it for me. These days, I’m editing primarily from a mobile device, and every bit of editing seems that much more laborious. As I said before, the second citation is easily accessible in the referendum link. I’ll add them both tomorrow. (I’m just skimming my watchlist at the moment while doing some other work). Thank you for being communicative about this. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I feel your pain on the mobile edit thing. Once in a while I read an article on my Kindle and notice a small typo. Twenty minutes later, I've fixed it.
 * Editing in a real browser is so much better. TJRC (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Agaw people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amhara. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Innocent
Your comments are "strange" to say the least. I have never moved any page to "bad titles". Indeed, I have not moved any pages anywhere, ever. Indeed, I don't even know how to move a page. Nor have I ever "deleted or edited" anyone else's Talk page comments. What I have done is restore my Talk page comments when other people deleted them.

I have also reported these deletions to what I believed were the correct authorities (at least what Wikipedia said were the correct authorities). If you know of a better way to deal with the deletion of my comments, please provide me with the appropriate direction. Links would be helpful of course.

Peter Schaeffer Pschaeffer (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
I have no idea the ins and outs of Wikipedia like the way you apparently do and the way some do, but what is being done now is ABSOLUTELY biased and misleading in a great deal of articles that are written on this site, particularly ANY article of political nature. I attempt to make my thoughts known on Talk pages and I do, I just get laughed at or ignored and then I make edits to articles to make them more from a neutral stance and they immediately get removed and then I get threatened that I'll just be banned for edit-warring. You guys are literally saying in the Talk page on Benjamin's page "sorry, we believe what we say over a US Court of Law, our 'consensus' is more important", well, Wikipedia suffers as a whole, and it's really sad because people are beginning to lose faith overall in the neutrality of Wikipedia as a result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skcin7 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * And by the way, there isn't even a "consensus" reached at all on Benjamin's page. So I don't really know what you guys are talking about but I don't wanna get banned from editing by a bunch of bullies that outnumber me. Skcin7 (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Im genuinely sorry to hear how frustrating that is; know that I’m certainly not laughing at you, or anything of the sort. Editing Wikipedia can feel like an uphill battle, and personal. It usually isn’t, though. Most people here are just as frustrated and trying to improve things, like yourself. But as to the actual content issue... How the subject is described in a court document is just one source to consider; Benjamin is described in a number of reliable sources in terms that might be considered unflattering, or at least, would narrowly characterize their work. We have to describe why Carl Benjamin is notable. Simply being a YouTuber doesn’t make a person notable for the purposes of an encyclopedia entry. His public image and career, for better or worse, is based almost solely on being a “provocateur”, which I know is a term you’re not happy is applied to him.

To my knowledge, I’ve not edited that article, except to revert you after the other couple of times you were reverted. I did see your brief message on the talk page- if you feel you’re not being heard there, there are other venues to reach a wider audience, such as WP:NPOVN. I would first suggest starting a new topic on Benjamin’s talk page and try to engage the other editors. But I’d you wish, you can go straight to the NPOV noticeboard.

Just a forewarning, there has been prior discussion on this subject (it’s always helpful to check the archives), and figures similar to Benjamin are described with their views prominently in the lead. The lead is supposed to reflect the body and give readers a sense of what the person is notable for- hence, it can’t be excluded from the lead if it’s prominently in the body, as you attempting to do.

I know Wikipedia can be difficult to navigate, especially contentious subjects. If you want more help or another opinion, I’m always willing to help out in either of those respects. The warning may have been a bit alarming, but the main thing is: don’t edit war. Trying to force changes like that, without a consensus, and undoing those reverting you, will almost certainly lead to a block—- the warning was meant to prevent that, not to antagonize you. (I left the warning before ever reverting you myself, based on what I was seeing).

Feel free to reply here, and/or take one of the suggested routes to discuss. The important thing is you didn’t escalate it further. Whatever happens from here, at least you can say you tried. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Naomi Seibt
Yes, that was an edit conflict. Thanks for restoring.  Acroterion   (talk)   11:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * After reverting to GorillaWarfare’s version, I looked more carefully at the edit history and was almost positive it was a mis-click, instead of just your simply not noticing the intervening edits— it seemed like those edits were actually what you were trying to rectify, even. I figured if there was anything more to it, you’d let me know. Thanks for confirming, and always happy to help.. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 12:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Important notice
- Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Iran–Israel proxy conflict
You're right. The conflict began in 1985, not 2000. Iran openly attacked Israel through its Hezbollah mediator. Israel did not attack Iran. History shows that. I agree. My mistake. Ahmadinejad came 20 years later with open anti-Israel rhetoric. Baba Mica (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Parler has an RFC
Parler has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Notifying all editors who participated in the informal discussion about removing the term. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

JRoehl
It's definitely getting disruptive, I have catalogued some of the behavior after a post was made here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Accusations_of_editor_and_Wikipedia_political_bias

Don't know if it matters to you, but I thought I should let you know. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making me aware of the discussion on ANI. While I have most of the noticeboards in my Watchlist, obviously some of it falls through the cracks. I actually didn't know this was actively being discussed until now. While I give new (or largely inactive) editors a fair bit of leeway, as I said, I think this is becoming disruptive... To the point where administrator intervention is likely required to minimize it. It doesn't help that the discussion has gone a bit off the rails due to their responding to the majority of the comments posted on the RfC, while demonstrating a clear misunderstanding of the material being discussed, and without properly formatting their replies. It's a bit of a mess to read. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Pre-emptively changing the Beth Van Duyne to a victory
You preemptively changed the article to say she had won, before any reliable sources have made that claim. The single source you used likewise does not say she had won the seat, and seemed to carefully avoid making that claim. Yet you substantially changed the article to say she was the victor, and she was the new congresswoman for her district. Without any supporting sources, and the race as yet being uncalled. Why? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This discussion should have been placed on the talk page for Beth Van Duyne only, not on my talk page. And why I made the edits I did? She won the election.  She has declared victory, just like Biden has.  So there is support for her victory. Also, she won by a good margin.  You have not provided any evidence that Van Duyne has not declared victory. None. Zip. Nada.  --  CharlesShirley (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , we go with what reliable sources say. Not the pronouncements of candidates themselves. The line you’re trying to draw to Biden is one false equivalence. Reliable sources have universally called the election for Biden, and reported his win. That you think the self-declaration of a candidate reported in one partisan web outlet of dubious reliability is sufficient for declaring something in Wikipedia’s voice, when the publication even goes to lengths not to call it, is worrisome. As in your somewhat aggressive attitude in my asking about what are clearly not just questionable, but honestly, bad edits. I was trying to be diplomatic before. I’m sorry, but this easily fails WP:VERIFICATION and WP:NPOV, which are core policies. And I asked on your user page as a courtesy, but I’ll copy this over to the article, as well, if you wish. You can respond there. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Strike your false accusations against me, at least?
Whether you understand what someone means in an edit summary from a pop lyric last year or not, you can't go around saying you know for a fact that they describe their actions as something in quotation marks you came up with. How'd you like it if went around telling people you admitted to describing your questionable work around here as "fiddling"? I suggest you strike your claims against me that are factually untrue, even if you were honestly mistaken rather than lying about what I said. Not threatening anything if you don't. I'd just consider you a person with common decency if you did. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've been a bit busy and haven't been able to edit properly in a little while, or respond to comments. My apologies. I'll strike that particular wording, as the quotes give the impression that's what you said, verbatim, when it was more nuanced. And to answer your question, I wouldn't personally mind. Especially since (historically) most of my work here has been confined to copyediting and focusing on editor retention, which many content editors would indeed describe as "fiddling". But based on the appeal to courtesy, I'll redact that part of my comment, even if the post is archived before I get to it. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The part without direct quotes claiming Jimbo and I had an agreement about making Talk Page requests is also untrue, but less offensive since it comes across as your interpretation. Decent people misunderstand me often enough, and it's sometimes mostly my fault, due to my admitted obsession with opaque lyrical flourishes.
 * Protip for the future, though, my edit summaries are on a whole other level of abstraction, and attempting to draw concrete meaning from these is difficult even with the prerequisite knowledge. I'm sorry to have bothered you by blending two Canadian rock staples earlier in this page history, I don't blame you for mainly receiving that one line from that one band that really was a one-hit wonder in all but one country for one or two years one decade. Even those who memorized all the lyrics, instead of just getting the chorus hooked internally, don't entirely "get it", a lot of TBL is wacky like that.
 * But seriously, "We're All To Blame" doesn't mince words and is better than that Sum 41 song that most non-Canucks remember them for. And honestly, I was trying to say I wouldn't tell people you admitted to molesting your topic areas, not just tinkering with them and encouraging others to stay and help. But that was purely hypothetical, I don't actually consider your contributions nasty in any sense, keep them coming! InedibleHulk (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've had quite a bit on my plate lately, including some family medical crises. I've edited a few times, but that was usually on mobile while in a waiting room. But I haven't forgotten; I have, however, lost where the comment was. If you want to link me, I'll take care of it ASAP. Or I can try to find it later myself in the archives. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with quietly moving on if you are. But if you happen to remember, regret and retract later, don't let my apathy and understanding today stop you. Sucks to hear about those crises, take care of what's obviously more important first, of course! InedibleHulk (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice of discussion
Hi, just making you aware that Arbitration/Requests/Case exists, since you commented in prior discussions on the issues raised there. GPinkerton (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notice, . Appreciated. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Zelenko Protocol
Please take your objections to the talk page at Talk:Vladimir Zelenko for a full discussion, thank you, IZAK (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)