User talk:Symmachus Auxiliarus

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Symmachus_Auxiliarus.

This user is in university.

This user may be away or inactive for varying periods of time, especially if they have exams.
Although they may occasionally be able to do some editing, talk page messages might not receive a timely response.

Note: This user’s editing is likely to be sporadic for a few weeks. Please be patient.

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

David.Mark.M, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Of course. Thank you. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 ☎ 09:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

龙王岗, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

TJRC, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@TJRC: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]