User talk:Symmachus Auxiliarus

greeting
Thanks, I've been editing wikipedia for exactly 15 years :) Unfortunately I do not speak English Szlávics (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Speculations about mental health of Putin
Hello Symmachus Auxiliarus, do you still have time for the changes in the formulations from the section? My mother tongue is not English. Thanks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vladimir_Putin/Archive_16#Vladimir_Putin#Speculations_about_mental_health
 * Vladimir_Putin#Speculations_about_mental_health

There was already an earlier discussion on this topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vladimir_Putin/Archive_16#Mention_the_speculation_about_his_mental_health --Riquix (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Mention the speculation about his mental health

My gods not dead article
Can you please delete it or have someone else delete it. I apologize for making it. The disambiguation page is good enough to list the films Evansturtecky18 (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

General Sanctions alert
Venkat TL (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions alert
Venkat TL (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Religion in India. Thank you. Venkat TL (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Just a reminder
Your PA has been noted, and so has your behavior toward other editors. Try harder to maintain a collegial disposition, and remember that the hurtful things you say affect real people with real feelings.  Atsme 💬 📧 10:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Since when is pointing out something that you yourself said in the past “a personal attack”? You continue variations of that same line of faulty reasoning, even within that particular section of RSN itself. Likewise, questioning your ability to edit neutrally in this specific topic area is not a personal attack. The entire community has questioned it before, more than once, and I felt it was aprons to raise the issue again, as it is nearly every time by someone else whenever you wade into this topic area. Was I brusk? Sure. But there’s no need for the warning. I am aware that you are a real person. You appear in the media often enough that I know you’re real, usually ready to grind an axe against the supposed “liberal creep” and supposed censorship of conservative voices on Wikipedia. Or rather, you refer to this theory of yours indirectly. But it’s never actually about that. It’s about battling misinformation, and it seems like you have a hard time parsing that from reliable information. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I deleted it, and you reverted my deletion here. Your comments and actions are combative, and I will address your out-of-context comment at RSN where admins can see it.  Atsme 💬 📧 11:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It was an edit conflict, Atsme... I didn't revert anything. I wasn't about to rewrite and rephrase something I had spent the last few minutes writing on a crotchety touchscreen mobile device (in desktop mode). You can't really just copy and paste the conflicting text (unfortunately), so I overrode your edit. I accept that you're taking back the warning, and I thank you, but there's nothing nefarious going on there. I just hate editing on mobile. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 11:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * SA, that was an unacceptable comment about Atsme. Rather than focus on the arguments Atsme was making in the topic you decided to dig up prior comments out of context (a logically flawed argument) and then suggested she should be subject to sanctions because, in effect, you don't agree with her.  That is way over the top.  Springee (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Springee, I've known you to be amenable to reason in some of our discussions, which was always appreciated. So I have to ask, do you really think that her potentially disruptive comments would hold up on the more visible noticeboards? I disagree with her assessment of the sources, and you know perfectly well that my view of the situation would hold up under any scrutiny. I'm saying this to Atsme for her own personal benefit as well, despite my being blunt with her. It's better to back away from a topic area where she can't be reasonably neutral. That's my opinion, and I'm free to broach the issue. As I said, this comes up perennially. I have nothing against Atsme. But we either accept the consensus view of reliable sources, or if we can't, we back away. That's what you do when you truly accept the core policies we're based upon. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * SA, I appreciate your level headed reply here. I don't see her comments as disruptive.  They are certainly a minority POV but she also will say why she feels as she does.  I mean if editorX says, "I think Infowars should be upgraded" we are almost certainly going to say, "No because...".  But so long as editorX doesn't bring it up out of context nor tries to put Infowars into articles as if it were a RS, I'm not sure I see the issue.  It's the difference between policing thoughts vs actions.  Just as we say BIAS sources are OK, BIASed editors can also be OK.  You may be correct that she is far from neutral with respect to what should be a RS.  However, that is what the noticeboard is for.  This is only a problem if she is inserting bad sources into articles or otherwise making disruptive edits.  I don't see anyone making that claim.  I do agree that you are free to broach the issue but consider where it was done.  Much of what was said could have been said exclusively on user talk pages.  I don't know about you but if someone has an issue with my talk page behavior (say they feel I'm bludgeoning the discussion) I would much rather they raise the issue on my talk page.  I may not agree but if they raise it in a good faith way I will at least try to respond in kind.  Based on your reply to me on this page I suspect you are similar. Springee (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The trouble you're running into here is unwitting enablers of fascism see it as a difference of opinion in the public square rather than a set of practices which is corrosive to the idea of the public square. We at wikipedia are very committed to the idea of separating opinion from conduct and hoping that people express opinions as a result of their internal feelings and not tactically or nihilistically. It left us completely defenseless when gamergaters came by to tell us that their little bouts of terrorism were about 'ethics in games journalism' and I suspect little has changed since 2014. Protonk (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Beau
I accept that you feel that Bot5C meets GNG, but please don't add redlinked entries to disambiguation pages. Write the article first. DS (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Edelman Family Foundation
Hi @Symmachus Auxiliarus

I am reaching out to you because of your previous participation in one of the discussions regarding the reliability and neutrality of HuffPost/Pink News/ProPublica as sources used on Wikipedia.

Currently, there is an ongoing issue with the Edelman Family Foundation section in the Joseph Edelman Wikipedia article. The section appears to be biased and lacks a balanced representation of the foundation's activities, as it primarily focuses on a single controversial donation while neglecting to mention the organization's numerous other significant contributions to various causes.

I would like to invite you to participate in the discussion on the BLP Noticeboard to address the concerns surrounding the section's neutrality and explore ways to improve its content. Llama Tierna (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)