|
User talk:Amigao/Archive 1
WelcomeHello Amigao, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page. Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia... Finding your way around: Need help?
How you can help:
Additional tips...
Epeefleche Amigao, good luck, and have fun. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC) June 2011 You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on George Demos. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC) BLP policy on Cliff StearnsWhen contentious and contested material is removed on citing BLP concerns it cannot be restored until the material has been reviewed and there is consensus to do so (either on the talk page or at WP:BLPN). As these were unfounded allegations made by an opponent it is WP:UNDUE as it is currently written.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC) February 2013Amigao, you have added a section on the history of the Bahrain uprising to Qorvis. Can you please explain why this is relevant to their entry? It would seem at best a citation or an internal link. I have removed as these internal citations exist in the entry. Thanks in advance for your response. ----harriett888 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harriett888 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC) May 2013
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Hi, ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open! Hello, Amigao. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. 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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!Hello, Amigao. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. 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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) ArbCom 2017 election voter messageHello, Amigao. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) ArbCom 2018 election voter messageHello, Amigao. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) ArbCom 2018 election voter messageHello, Amigao. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) August 2019
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You need WP:DUE and WP:Citation for allegation on media . One single source is not enough . Some allegation may worth to add to the main body of the articles if more than a few sources. But it is not suitable to put in infobox which is for some fact that undisputed correct Matthew hk (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at The China Press, you may be blocked from editing. Matthew hk (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 30Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited TikTok, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wired (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 07:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC) Please stop removing sourcesPlease stop removing Global Times sources without discussion, especially without replacing it with better sources. There have been multiple discussions on Global Times and there is no consensus that it cannot be used. It's a biased source, but generally ok for uncontroversial facts. Please see WP:RSP. -Zanhe (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC) ArbCom 2019 election voter message
Attribution in bibliographyHello, please use a more descriptive edit summary than clean up when you remove sources for no obvious reason. In this case there is still some sentence left from the original revision (for instance "BBG became" etc.) but arguably not enough to still need the attribution. If you checked this, it would have been useful to mention it in the edit summary. Nemo 07:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC) Edits to HuaweiYou've wholesale removed long-standing text claiming that they are "self-promotional". While some of the passages you removed did seem a bit fishy imo, you seem to be focused on removing any material (cited or not) that justifies why Huawei has been so dominant. ViperSnake151 Talk 03:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC) A more balanced explanation on what Jiusan Society isHi Amigao, thanks for your warning. Here is the solution I would like to propose: since it is so important for you to include the two sources regarding what Jiusan Society is, I will add more sources to make it more balanced. I can see from your "talk" page that there have been some wiki wars you were involved, and I'm glad that you are still able to edit. I certainly hope this will not lead to another war. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highthill (talk • contribs) 23:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC) Hi Amigao, I cannot find the mentioning of Jiusan Society in the three articles you cited to support "Jiusan Society" is being "effectively controlled" by CPC. So I have to take it off. With all due respect, I would like to see you add it back when it comes with source of the information. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highthill (talk • contribs) 00:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Hi Amigao, you still added the content without citing the source of infomation or citing wrong source of information. I can only assume it is based on your personal perception. And you deleted the source of the information I added without giving explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highthill (talk • contribs) 12:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC) NeutralityThe wordings in wiki need to be neutral and impartial. Please make discussions before you change. 钉钉 (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 |
Turkish diaspora
Hi Amigao, I've previously seen the Sputnik new agency used as a source in many wiki articles, so I wanted to understand the reasoning behind your removal of this source in the Turkish diaspora article. Could you please let me know what makes it inappropriate here but ok someplace else? I wanted to make sure I'm following all wiki rules. Thanks in advance. Sseevv (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- The entry on Sputnik at WP:RSP has an overview of the source and links to the discussion around why it was fully deprecated. WP:DEPS also provides guidance on when a fully deprecated source can be used, for example: WP:ABOUTSELF. Amigao (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Deprecated sources
Hi Amigao, thanks for your work with deprecated sources. Can you please review these edits ([2], [3], [4])? I think these uses of Sputnik might fall under acceptable use guidelines. The concern with Sputnik has been that they are biased and publish Russian propaganda, which is hardly the case in the examples I provided which are all very uncontroversial. For uncontroversial cases, I believe we should replace Sputnik references with other ones rather than removing them.Alaexis¿question? 10:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- FYI, I've raised this as a general issue at Wikipedia_talk:Deprecated_sources. I hope it doesn't come across as personal, I believe that this is an important issue and that the community would benefit from clearer guidelines. Alaexis¿question? 20:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
People's Daily
You need to verify that the People's Daily post actually claims what Palmer claims, and not blindly trust Foreign Policy or Palmer to accurately represent their quotings. Here is the actual verbiage from the post:
#COVID19 did not start in central China’s Wuhan but may come through imported frozen food and packaging: experts... According to an earlier Italian study, antibodies specific to Sars-CoV-2, the official name of the coronavirus, were found in blood samples collected in a lung cancer screening trial between September 2019 and March this year.
It is a stretch to interpret this as a claim of a Western origin of SARS-nCoV-2 in the voice of PD, only that PD is claiming that it did not originate in Wuhan.
As to your second, poorly explained wording attempt, you need WP:MEDRS to demonstrate definitively that there is little to no possibility of an importation, not Palmer's partisan assessment. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- WP:MEDRS applies to medical claims, not claims regarding simply the text that a newspaper published. Also, no claim of "Western" origin was made in the statement, only that it was "imported." Big difference. Amigao (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- No, WP:MEDRS applies to any claims on the origin of a virus, which is what this is about. And, this is what Palmer is quoted as:
Propaganda push. Beijing is doubling down on its big lie of 2020: the claim that the new coronavirus didn’t originate in China but was instead imported from the West
- CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Not quite. This is a statement regarding a newspaper making a claim about the origins of the virus. There's a difference. Regarding the claim itself, it just happens to be a well-documented piece of misinformation, which is why it is on misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic in the first place. Amigao (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- WP:MEDRS does not make exceptions for statements regarding newspaper claims (in this case, Palmer's false reporting). Onus in on you to demonstrate to the contrary.
well-documented piece of misinformation
No it is not, the misinformation mentioned in that section before your edits today is relating to: 1) U.S. army or government bio-engineering; 2) mis-representation of Remuzzi's reporting. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)- Incorrect. See the first paragraph in the sub-section "Origin of Virus". Amigao (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is an inexplicable failure of reading comprehension. All three non-opinion refs (CNN, WaPo Shih, AFP) are about U.S.-related conspiracy theories. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- They are about a particular conspiracy theory that blames the U.S. for the origin of the virus, to be precise here. Also, might be worth reviewing WP:NPA. Amigao (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- That, as you are fully aware, is separate from claims of the virus being introduced via imported meats, which is what the aforementioned PD post is about. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- They are about a particular conspiracy theory that blames the U.S. for the origin of the virus, to be precise here. Also, might be worth reviewing WP:NPA. Amigao (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is an inexplicable failure of reading comprehension. All three non-opinion refs (CNN, WaPo Shih, AFP) are about U.S.-related conspiracy theories. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Incorrect. See the first paragraph in the sub-section "Origin of Virus". Amigao (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Not quite. This is a statement regarding a newspaper making a claim about the origins of the virus. There's a difference. Regarding the claim itself, it just happens to be a well-documented piece of misinformation, which is why it is on misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic in the first place. Amigao (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Reliable sources
Hi @Amigao: I really appreciate your valuable contributions re Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I believe the following discussion is relevant to your work. It would be great if you could take a look and provide your insight. Thanks.
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Xinhua_News_Agency
Normchou (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. More so than Xinhua, China Daily is known for propaganda and disinformation campaigns. Amigao (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input. It would be great to have a discussion in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard on China Daily as well. Normchou (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- It came up a few months ago here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_305#China_Daily and it seems there might be some interest in an RfC on it. Amigao (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input. It would be great to have a discussion in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard on China Daily as well. Normchou (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
December 2020
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Anthony Hudson (football manager), did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You seem to have a real issue with your editing. You're so keen to just remove stuff that you are willing to edit war?
You've been told before that while you can remove links, it's best to provide a new source and tag old links.
Also surely you know WP:BRD, so you edited, I reverted, why are you doing it again? I think your editing needs to be looked at by admins NZFC(talk)(cont) 13:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Fully deprecated sources removed are replaced with a [citation needed] tag when appropriate. In this case, there is another source to back up the statement being made. The entry on RT at WP:RSP has an overview of the source and links to the discussion around why it was fully deprecated. WP:DEPS also provides guidance on when a fully deprecated source can be used, for example: WP:ABOUTSELF. In this particular case, WP:ABOUTSELF is not applicable. Amigao (talk) 13:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- So this shows that you aren't checking before you remove things, otherwise you would have realised the other link is dead so you've gone and left the article with no reference instead.
- This assumes there actually is a replacement reference for the statement in question, which is not something one can automatically assume when dealing with sources that the community has decided to fully deprecate such as RT for very good reasons (see: WP:RSP). That's why a [citation needed] tag is left if it's the sole source being used out of good faith and an abundance of caution. In the particular case of Anthony Hudson, the deprecated source was never the sole source being used in the statement in question and there was another perfectly good link that was left in place. Apparently, it was a dead link that just needed to be repaired. I'm certainly not checking every article I edit for WP:LINKROT as I don't think anyone would consider that reasonable. Amigao (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- So this shows that you aren't checking before you remove things, otherwise you would have realised the other link is dead so you've gone and left the article with no reference instead.
Your editing doesn't help just removing stuff if it leaves articles worse off. NZFC(talk)(cont) 13:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NZFC(talk)(cont) 13:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Warning
While your editing is within the letter of WP:Deprecated, it gives the appearance of not paying attention and editors are concerned about the bot-like rate at which you are removing depreciated sources. Please stop these removals and discuss these editors' concerns before continuing and if and when you resume please do so at a more careful pace. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. While I do focused editing, I make an effort to assess the wording of the statement in which a fully deprecated source is used to ensure that is not one of the very few acceptable uses of it (such as WP:ABOUTSELF). In cases where a fully deprecated source is the sole citation being used for a statement, it is replaced with a {{citation needed}} tag, which assumes good faith about the statement and it also permits others the opportunity to research and assess the validity of that statement. When dealing with a fully deprecated source like RT (one with a well-documented history of outright fabrications and disinformation - see:WP:RSP), perhaps that is overly generous at times but I feel it strikes the right balance in assuming good faith. Amigao (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying. The problem with this is that you are removing the link and placing a {{citation needed}} tag - which is your editing producing additional work for other editors. It's much better if in removing the depreciated source, you also add a replacement reference instead of a CN tag. Also there are concerns about the rapid pace of these removals - a look at your contributions page shows a rate of removals that is almost bot-like, which raises concerns that the removals are in fact being checked as appropriate.
- I would suggest that, when you resume editing, you engage the editors who have concerns about these removals (in the AN/I thread or elsewhere as appropriate) before resuming these removals, and come to a consensus on what balance should be struck between outright removal, replacement, and remembering that there is no deadline for removal. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank for discussing this. I certainly engage in highly focused editing (often on a particular source that the community decided to fully deprecate) and I'm happy to slow it down. However, it is worth noting that when dealing with a fully deprecated source with a history of outright fabrications, unfortunately one cannot assume that there are simply "replacement" references that can be slotted in. That's why a good-faith approach involves a [citation needed] tag when the fully deprecated source is the sole source in question. That approach affords others the opportunity to continue to assess the underlying statement in question, which may then require significant revision or sometimes removal. Also, for transparency, the issue has been raised and discussed in WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_317#Mass_removal_of_content_on_China-related_articles previously and the [citation needed] tag was raised as an acceptable replacement for a fully deprecated source. Amigao (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Also some relevant discussion here as well Wikipedia_talk:Deprecated_sources#Proposed_clarification_of_deprecated_sources_guidelines on the same underlying issue. Amigao (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- I would suggest that, when you resume editing, you engage the editors who have concerns about these removals (in the AN/I thread or elsewhere as appropriate) before resuming these removals, and come to a consensus on what balance should be struck between outright removal, replacement, and remembering that there is no deadline for removal. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of investigations into Donald Trump and Russia (July–December 2017), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
December 2020
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The Bushranger One ping only 22:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Amigao (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I would greatly appreciate an extra set of eyes on this block as I believe the issue at play is complicated. I certainly admit to engaging in highly focused editing without bots/scripts to replace deprecated sources with a {{citation needed}} tag or removing them when there are other sources already cited. Is this approach against policy? I do my best to analyze the wording of the statement in which the deprecated source in question is used so that it does not fall within an acceptable use of it such as WP:ABOUTSELF. I have felt that when dealing with deprecated sources with a well-documented history of outright disinformation and fabrications such as RT, WP:NOW is of the utmost importance. Additionally, deprecated sources often do not have a simple "replacement" and the {{citation needed}} tag affords others the chance to analyze the statement in question as there may then be heavy revisions or removal required. Also, for this particular issue, I thought I had engaged with the editor in question on my talk page in good faith and saw that the fully deprecated source (RT in this case on the article for Anthony Hudson) was ultimately removed by them. I moved on because I assumed good intentions and that, at most, there might have been a misunderstanding on the nature of the WP:DEPS policy. That has happened before and it never caused me a block. It would be helpful to have some additional clarification here so as to educate myself on how to move forward in the most policy-compliant manner. Thanks.
Decline reason:
Your block appears to have expired. SQLQuery me! 23:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- I endorse this block (but as I am one of the multiple editors who asked you to stop previously, and also called for you to be blocked at ANI, I am probably too involved to respond to the unblock request). You are making several removals a minute – clearly not enough time to properly review them, so I can't see how the 'I do my best to analyze the wording of the statement' claim is true. Also, in many cases a replacement source can be easily found, but you're making no effort to do so. You've been asked by multiple editors to stop and ignored them all. You're also likely to be blocked again if you restart the same behaviour, so perhaps actually take on board the comments this time. Number 57 14:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- I believed the issue had been discussed at length by many, including yourself, here (Wikipedia_talk:Deprecated_sources#Proposed_clarification_of_deprecated_sources_guidelines most recently and was more complex than simply "replacing" a fully deprecated source with a reliable one. Unfortunately, with a deprecated source with a well-documented track record of disinformation, it is seldom an straightforward swapping out of sources. Replacing a fully deprecated source with a [citation needed] tag seemed like a path forward. I also read WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN and thought that my actions entailed that the burden and onus was not on those removing a deprecated source, but rather on those seeking to maintain its inclusion. I could be wrong on my reading on WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN, and would appreciate clarification on this general matter. Amigao (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Also worth mentioning that I have received more thank you notices for removing fully deprecated sources than complaints, so I took this issue to be more of a misunderstanding of policy. Amigao (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Obscuring the real source of a disputed claim is definitely not a good service to the reliability of the English Wikipedia. Other edits of yours are borderline fabrication of sources. Please desist. Nemo 21:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- I just looked at one random edit and I don't think that a claim about journalistic practices of a news source is "a medical claim". Nemo 09:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's also ridiculous to suggest that a "budgetary statistic" would be contentious, when it's a figure prominently contained in an official parliamentary report. The figure was surely reported in many news sources, and indeed the next edit easily found one. Indeed, such a figure could have been included even just with reference to the primary source, without being original research, as the relevance of said report was already established by other references in the same paragraph. Nemo 09:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Was it intentional to remove the only secondary source supporting a claim about a primary source (the linked video)? Hardly seems an improvement. Nemo 10:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- See also a few other issues, mostly about diplomatic matters. Here, often the diplomatic statements are themselves the story. RT is reckless in some fields but it wouldn't fabricate a translation of a RIA Novosti press release, and RIA Novosti wouldn't invent that Lavrov said something in public. Often we'd be able to quote a Reuters or AP translation or quotation of the same statement, but that's just one more layer. What matters is that we have a second source if we state something actually happened on the field, as opposed to merely saying Russia or RT said something. Nemo 10:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- None of these examples is an acceptable uses of a fully deprecated source. In particular, they fail #2 and #3 of WP:ABOUTSELF. - Amigao (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Amigao, I see you doing lots of good work, but this isn't it. Nemo bis needs to drop a half dozen comments before you respond? You never responded at the ANI thread, where editors think you have not addressed their concerns and persist in disruptive behavior. User:Number 57 (an admin) and User:Geogene are both unhappy; the latter wants you topic-banned from making these very edits. User:The Bushranger, I am really thinking a terrible thing here: a longer block per ENGAGE. It is the last thing that I want.
Amigao, this is a collaborative project. You mentioned something about a misunderstanding of policy in your unblock request, but that is completely inappropriate here: this isn't about some policy about sources or whatever, it is about a bigger thing--the spirit of the project. Please respond, and respond more timely, and respond even when not under threat of sanctions. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- I responded as promptly as I can on my talk page and I provided a clear policy-based response. It should also be mentioned that WP:ONUS very much applies here to the removal of fully deprecated sources. The better forum for this discussion is WP:RSN. - Amigao (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- It looks sadly likely. Amigao,
and engage with editors before continuing your reference removals, please. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- The correct forum for this discussion regarding removal and/or replacement of fully deprecated sources is WP:RSN. This is really more of a policy discussion at this stage. - Amigao (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but no, not all. I'm convinced that you're trying to apply the policy in good faith, but all my comments are about the specific way you chose for doing so: in all the examples above, you could have chosen at least half a dozen different ways (of which one, of course, is outright removal of the offending paragraphs). I suspect you perceive we're in a rush against time to remove all the deprecated sources, and given you can put only so much time in this effort you think it's acceptable to choose whichever method is faster way; but I'm not at all convinced this is true. Nemo 09:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Per WP:BURDEN, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." This is consistent with my editing concerning unreliable (deprecated) sources. Also, when dealing with a source such as RT that the community decided to deprecate because it is generally unreliable and well-known for disinformation, WP:NOW is a useful essay. - Amigao (talk) 10:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- This sounds like WP:PLAYPOLICY. Yes, Burden and Onus exist, but I think it's debatable whether they are intended to cover the drive-by, mass challenging of sources across hundreds of articles, at a rate of up to 4 articles per minute. I read the thread you linked to at [5], and all I got from it is that 1) there's no consensus in favor of mass, bot-like removal of deprecated sources, although 2) some Wikipedians do appear to be in favor of it, while 3) other Wikipedians also seem to be alarmed by it, and those complaints appear to be directed at you specifically. It looks like the Wikipedia:Deprecated sources project page says, "Deprecation is not a blanket retroactive "ban" on using the source in absolutely every situation, contrary to what has been reported in media headlines." Geogene (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Deprecation is clearly not a blanket ban as WP:RS states regarding certain permissible WP:ABOUTSELF usages of deprecated sources. Also, this is not WP:PLAYPOLICY at all. WP:BURDEN, WP:ONUS, and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Deprecated_sources are absolutely core to Wikipedia, and my edits are consistent with them. Also worth mentioning that oftentimes unreliable (deprecated) sources like RT are used as WP:LINKSPAM in articles alongside reliable sources. In those cases, the deprecated source should also be removed per WP:FALSEBALANCE. - Amigao (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Well, for that matter, WP:NOTBURO and WP:IAR are also core to Wikipedia, and quite a few editors think that the way you're going about removing deprecs is a net negative. Geogene (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Consensus is important but WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does make a core policy and guideline like WP:V and WP:RS stop applying. Part of the concern is that many might not fully appreciate how damaging deprecated sources of misinformation/disinformation (like RT) can be. That's why WP:NOW is such a helpful essay because it deals directly with urgency of removing misinformation. - Amigao (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Well, for that matter, WP:NOTBURO and WP:IAR are also core to Wikipedia, and quite a few editors think that the way you're going about removing deprecs is a net negative. Geogene (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Deprecation is clearly not a blanket ban as WP:RS states regarding certain permissible WP:ABOUTSELF usages of deprecated sources. Also, this is not WP:PLAYPOLICY at all. WP:BURDEN, WP:ONUS, and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Deprecated_sources are absolutely core to Wikipedia, and my edits are consistent with them. Also worth mentioning that oftentimes unreliable (deprecated) sources like RT are used as WP:LINKSPAM in articles alongside reliable sources. In those cases, the deprecated source should also be removed per WP:FALSEBALANCE. - Amigao (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- This sounds like WP:PLAYPOLICY. Yes, Burden and Onus exist, but I think it's debatable whether they are intended to cover the drive-by, mass challenging of sources across hundreds of articles, at a rate of up to 4 articles per minute. I read the thread you linked to at [5], and all I got from it is that 1) there's no consensus in favor of mass, bot-like removal of deprecated sources, although 2) some Wikipedians do appear to be in favor of it, while 3) other Wikipedians also seem to be alarmed by it, and those complaints appear to be directed at you specifically. It looks like the Wikipedia:Deprecated sources project page says, "Deprecation is not a blanket retroactive "ban" on using the source in absolutely every situation, contrary to what has been reported in media headlines." Geogene (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Per WP:BURDEN, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." This is consistent with my editing concerning unreliable (deprecated) sources. Also, when dealing with a source such as RT that the community decided to deprecate because it is generally unreliable and well-known for disinformation, WP:NOW is a useful essay. - Amigao (talk) 10:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but no, not all. I'm convinced that you're trying to apply the policy in good faith, but all my comments are about the specific way you chose for doing so: in all the examples above, you could have chosen at least half a dozen different ways (of which one, of course, is outright removal of the offending paragraphs). I suspect you perceive we're in a rush against time to remove all the deprecated sources, and given you can put only so much time in this effort you think it's acceptable to choose whichever method is faster way; but I'm not at all convinced this is true. Nemo 09:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- The correct forum for this discussion regarding removal and/or replacement of fully deprecated sources is WP:RSN. This is really more of a policy discussion at this stage. - Amigao (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Amigao, I see you doing lots of good work, but this isn't it. Nemo bis needs to drop a half dozen comments before you respond? You never responded at the ANI thread, where editors think you have not addressed their concerns and persist in disruptive behavior. User:Number 57 (an admin) and User:Geogene are both unhappy; the latter wants you topic-banned from making these very edits. User:The Bushranger, I am really thinking a terrible thing here: a longer block per ENGAGE. It is the last thing that I want.
- None of these examples is an acceptable uses of a fully deprecated source. In particular, they fail #2 and #3 of WP:ABOUTSELF. - Amigao (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- See also a few other issues, mostly about diplomatic matters. Here, often the diplomatic statements are themselves the story. RT is reckless in some fields but it wouldn't fabricate a translation of a RIA Novosti press release, and RIA Novosti wouldn't invent that Lavrov said something in public. Often we'd be able to quote a Reuters or AP translation or quotation of the same statement, but that's just one more layer. What matters is that we have a second source if we state something actually happened on the field, as opposed to merely saying Russia or RT said something. Nemo 10:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Was it intentional to remove the only secondary source supporting a claim about a primary source (the linked video)? Hardly seems an improvement. Nemo 10:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's also ridiculous to suggest that a "budgetary statistic" would be contentious, when it's a figure prominently contained in an official parliamentary report. The figure was surely reported in many news sources, and indeed the next edit easily found one. Indeed, such a figure could have been included even just with reference to the primary source, without being original research, as the relevance of said report was already established by other references in the same paragraph. Nemo 09:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
But for the most part, you're not removing disinformation. You're removing routine journalistic coverage. The only suspect content I've seen you touch was in one of the Nemo bis diffs, in which RT claimed that Italian police had injured 80 protesters, while reliable sources said it was one person that had been injured. You deleted the RT source but left the misinformation in the article! The rest of the stuff you're un-sourcing includes things that have nothing to do with the Kremlin's interests, things like French celebrities dying in helicopter crashes in Argentina, for example. Putin wouldn't care about stuff like that, so I don't understand why you expect to waste other editors' time finding new sources that say the same thing. If it's important enough for you to delete the deprecated source, then it should be important enough for you to supply a replacement source yourself. Geogene (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- The community took a different view when they deprecated RT as it cannot be used for routine journalistic coverage. Per WP:RS, "A deprecated source should not be used to support factual claims. While there are exceptions for discussion of the source's own view on something, these are rarely appropriate outside articles on the source itself. In general articles, commentary on a deprecated source's opinion should be drawn from independent secondary sources. Including a claim or statement by a deprecated source that is not covered by reliable sources risks giving undue weight to a fringe view." WP:RS is very clear on this. For reference, this is the May 2020 RfC that deprecated RT: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_295#RfC:_RT_(Russia_Today). - Amigao (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Again, most of the sources you're deleting aren't being used to reference fringe viewpoints, but routine journalistic coverage. And, again, you have not shown that consensus exists to retroactively remove all deprecated sources. Further, the fact that you don't think it's important to provide new sourcing implies that you don't actually believe that the content you're un-sourcing is misinformation. Geogene (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- The community disagreed that RT is valid for routine journalistic coverage, as you describe it, as you can clearly see in WP:RSP and the RfC linked above. The edit history for Oleksandr Yefremov shows an example of RT being used to peddle disinformation. Also, any WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here never overrides policy and guidelines covering deprecated sources (WP:V and WP:RS). An unreliable deprecated source remains so unless there is an RfC to change that. Also, no one is advocating about removing all unreliable deprecated sources because there are acceptable uses in WP:ABOUTSELF. The articles on Michael Flynn or Slavoj Žižek are examples of RT being used in a manner consistent with WP:ABOUTSELF. The issue is that uses of unreliable deprecated sources that violate WP:RS, which is the vast majority of them, can and should be removed. - Amigao (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- There is no consensus, local or otherwise, that all deprecated sources must be retroactively removed, and you're not engaging with my concerns. I'm removing this talk page from my watchlist, as this seems to be a waste of time. My supply of good faith is also running short -- I agree with deprecating RT, but your reckless implementation of it could easily be mistaken for malicious compliance. Geogene (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Again, no one is saying that all unreliable deprecated sources must be removed because there are clearly some limited acceptable uses of them in WP:ABOUTSELF. However, the vast majority of uses of unreliable deprecated sources fail WP:V and WP:RS. - Amigao (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- There is no consensus, local or otherwise, that all deprecated sources must be retroactively removed, and you're not engaging with my concerns. I'm removing this talk page from my watchlist, as this seems to be a waste of time. My supply of good faith is also running short -- I agree with deprecating RT, but your reckless implementation of it could easily be mistaken for malicious compliance. Geogene (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- The community disagreed that RT is valid for routine journalistic coverage, as you describe it, as you can clearly see in WP:RSP and the RfC linked above. The edit history for Oleksandr Yefremov shows an example of RT being used to peddle disinformation. Also, any WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here never overrides policy and guidelines covering deprecated sources (WP:V and WP:RS). An unreliable deprecated source remains so unless there is an RfC to change that. Also, no one is advocating about removing all unreliable deprecated sources because there are acceptable uses in WP:ABOUTSELF. The articles on Michael Flynn or Slavoj Žižek are examples of RT being used in a manner consistent with WP:ABOUTSELF. The issue is that uses of unreliable deprecated sources that violate WP:RS, which is the vast majority of them, can and should be removed. - Amigao (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Again, most of the sources you're deleting aren't being used to reference fringe viewpoints, but routine journalistic coverage. And, again, you have not shown that consensus exists to retroactively remove all deprecated sources. Further, the fact that you don't think it's important to provide new sourcing implies that you don't actually believe that the content you're un-sourcing is misinformation. Geogene (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert
The edits you wisely reverted are a replica of edits deleted recently at 2008 Tibetan unrest by user AdoTang. Can we flag the IP address ? I had already pinged the editor on the talk, but haven't received a response. Then, a reinsertion of edits... Thanks again. Pasdecomplot (talk) 08:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- There are issues again there. If you're interested. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I think there should be vote on the Talkpage before any drastic move on the contain China article
What do you think? 27.104.203.24 (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi. WP:ELMIN is a well-established guideline and cleaning up an overgrown External links section so that it conforms to it is not necessarily drastic. All too often the External links section is an ignored dumping ground for opinion pieces and whatnot. - Amigao (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Removing easily replaceable refs again
It took me 10 seconds to find a replacement for the reference you deleted from the 2015 Transnistrian parliamentary election article. Do we need to go back to ANI again? Number 57 20:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
A beer for you!
|
Appreciation post for your contribution on Want Want AlphonseOop (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC) |
Attempt to reintroduce edits by a sock
Your attempt to reintroduce material under false pretenses that were first made by a sock on First island chain is disappointing to say the least, considering that you are not a new editor. The user Albertaont was within their means to remove them. Stick to WP:NPOV and perhaps not actually engage in WP:BE no matter how tempting it may be considering your interests had aligned with them. 209.216.92.203 (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- You have now removed other well-sourced improvements to the page. Please see "Deleting articles or article edits" under WP:SOCKSTRIKE and do follow it. - Amigao (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Also, be aware that your last sentence could be interpreted as coming very close to casting WP:ASPERSIONS. - Amigao (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Amigao, for future reference this IP is themselves a sockpuppet. There's a few sock farms that seem to go after each other in the Southeast Asia area, but for this one in particular see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Ineedtostopforgetting. CMD (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
April 2021
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.-- Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- Please review WP:BRD-NOT and understand that it is disruptive behavior. - Amigao (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Africa-China relations
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. PailSimon (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- This user is apparently banned now. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I can see why the Sputnik News link and content you removed from this article is not usually recommended, I understood that when I added it, having reviewed all the guidance, and made a comment in the edit description. However, in this case the source provides an audio interview with Gould himself where all the quotes are directly drawn from, so there is no 'fake news'. I would appreciate that you read this guidance: WP:Deprecated sources, specifically the Acceptable use of deprecated sources section which states: "Deprecated sources can normally be cited as a primary source when the source itself is the subject of discussion, such as to describe its own viewpoint.". It was in this context that I added content here which I feel is a primary and fair representation of the subject of the BLP and it is my view that your deletion should be reverted.
Mountaincirquetalk 08:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Please use common sense here regarding WP:Deprecated sources here, you can open the link and listen to the full 27-minute interview with the subject, these are primary quotes from the BLP subject and are obviously not disinformation if reviewed properly. I have just looked at your talk archive and can see you have received multiple warnings and blocks for making edits like this in the past, as well as edit warring, this concerns me quite frankly as this is not something I want to be wasting my time with, so I will not immediately revert your removal as per WP:BOLD, but wait a day or two for your reply. If you do not respond then I will add the content back and tweak it slightly to represent the source of the information, which might allay your blanket fear of deprecated sources. Mountaincirquetalk 09:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- If you wish to use a fully deprecated source on a BLP, I would recommend you take it to WP:BLPN first. - Amigao (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support, I did as you suggested and followed the admin's guidance. All the best Mountaincirquetalk 16:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- If you wish to use a fully deprecated source on a BLP, I would recommend you take it to WP:BLPN first. - Amigao (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Please use common sense here regarding WP:Deprecated sources here, you can open the link and listen to the full 27-minute interview with the subject, these are primary quotes from the BLP subject and are obviously not disinformation if reviewed properly. I have just looked at your talk archive and can see you have received multiple warnings and blocks for making edits like this in the past, as well as edit warring, this concerns me quite frankly as this is not something I want to be wasting my time with, so I will not immediately revert your removal as per WP:BOLD, but wait a day or two for your reply. If you do not respond then I will add the content back and tweak it slightly to represent the source of the information, which might allay your blanket fear of deprecated sources. Mountaincirquetalk 09:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Undo other users' edits without giving any reason?
Amigao, please respect other editors' contribution. Wikipedia page is not your own property and it is very impolite of you to delete my work without any reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YushanLi 33 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Amigao, you just undid my edits on "Center for China and Globalization" without giving any proper reason. I don't think it follows wiki etiquette to only keep the citation that you found and deny others' although they follow wiki rules too. Please show some respect to other users' contribution and stop this wiki war, which it seems you practiced frequently.
Amigao, I have been very patient with your rude and disrespectful behavior, deleting my contribution with proper citation following Wiki rules WITHOUT ANY SUFFICIENT REASONS and ignoring my inquiry about your contribution. You stand on no ground to judge if my or anyone else' contribution is constructive. STOP this wiki war as you have done and get warned of many times before!
May 2021
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 07:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sunderland Renaissance, please review WP:BRD-NOT and understand that your reverts are not supported by policy (WP:COMMONNAME is a WP:POLICY) and that this counts as disruptive behavior. If you don't agree with a particular policy, please feel free to begin an RfC on that policy's talk page. - Amigao (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. --Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Essentially your rule is this, you are allowed to revert anyone and any change anything you like, demanding it be "took to the talk page" but you otherwise change things at will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunderland Renaissance (talk • contribs) 03:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Your incomplete method about "unreliable" sources
Hello, I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, as all other editors. But, what you are doing is unfair, by judging the reliability of sources and removing them on your own. Even if a source is deemed by Wikipedia itself as unreliable, you are of course welcomed to remove them, but, please finish your job with bringing a reliable source, then. What you do is nothing but an unfinished business, as well as looking down to other editors' efforts. Regards. Isik (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC).
Edit warring
Hi - I just blocked that account for edit warring, but looking at the history of the pages they were active on, I see that you were also way past WP:3RR, and I'm leaning towards thinking that I should block your account too in order to avoid an accusation of taking sides. I can't see any reason why WP:3RRNO would apply - the edits had none of the hallmarks of vandalism as far as I can see, they just thought we should use a different version of the name of the party in those articles. Can you shed any light on why you thought they were vandalism? Thanks GirthSummit (blether) 16:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi! Unfortunately, there has been a lot of recent off-wiki brigading relating to CCP-related articles and much of it centers on coordinated, mass violations of WP:COMMONNAME following several RfCs on the talk page of Chinese Communist Party. Please see: [6] for additional context. - Amigao (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Amigao, OK, it sounds like you're appealing to WP:3RRNO criterion 8 there. If there's an established talk page consensus on which variant of the name to use in the form of an RfC, you'd be OK to go past 3RR, but in that case you should link to the discussion in your edit summary. If there's evidence of disruption fuelled by off-wiki canvassing, I'd suggest a report to RfPP for affected articles. Best GirthSummit (blether) 16:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's helpful guidance. Thanks. - Amigao (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Amigao, OK, it sounds like you're appealing to WP:3RRNO criterion 8 there. If there's an established talk page consensus on which variant of the name to use in the form of an RfC, you'd be OK to go past 3RR, but in that case you should link to the discussion in your edit summary. If there's evidence of disruption fuelled by off-wiki canvassing, I'd suggest a report to RfPP for affected articles. Best GirthSummit (blether) 16:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
May 2021
Dear Amigao,
I am launching a complaint about you to administrators in due frustration over your frequent aggressive reverting, policing and blatant POV editing in China related content wherein you frequently dictate the flow of changes in these articles and then frame me as a vandal or edit warrior even when I try to balance them out- Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit Warring by Amigao on China related topics. Thank you. Deb (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Mass removal of RT sources + somewhat abrupt treatment of editors
Hi Amigao,
I couldn't help notice that you have continued to remove RT references even in situations that are not deprecated per RS/N or RS/P. Indeed, this edit removes the RT sources, but curiously, leaves in the Lenta.ru citation. Whilst I appreciate that RT is not the highest quality source, there is not, as far as I can tell, any consensus to blanket remove it as a source...
I also noticed that you have recently been doing reverts like this, where your rationale is somewhat abrupt, and does not appear to be linkspam per se, as much as it is a likely newbie editor failing to appreciate MOS. It may be better to in the future, leave a note on newbie user's talkpage explaining what if anything, they have messed up, instead of simply leaving terse notes in your revert summary.
Best, BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 05:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- mea culpa I didn't notice that you had submitted one of the users to SPI. I must eat my words! BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 05:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, BrxBrx. Unfortunately, that article has been the target of WP:SPA socks for some time. Also, per WP:RSP, Lenta.ru is acceptable *only* when published prior to 12 March 2014, which is true in the case of MV Arctic Sea. - Amigao (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Alla Taran article
Hi Amigao, I have added more references to the article "Alla Taran" and also more information, anyway this woman violinist passed away in 2017, so the template doesn´t correspond. If you want you can see the new editions and remove the template. Thank you very much.--Miskito89 (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Community Sanctions Alert
 | This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
— Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Apple Daily
Apple Daily Hong Kong has been shut down, and all artice links are broken, which we currently have 318 of per hk.appledaily.com 
. Given that Apple Daily was a high traffic website all 318 linked articles have probably been archived at the Wayback Machine and elsewhere. Would it be possible for you to provide archived links for them? Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- I would suggest using the IABot on those 318 articles. - Amigao (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
speedy deletion
I've carried out some-- but not all-- of your speedy deletions. I remind you that A7 does not apply if there is a "credible claim of significance", a statement , whether or not sourced, that might lead a reasonable person to think an acceptable Wikipedia article might be written. And G11 does not apply unless the article is so highly promotional that an acceptable article would be impossible without complete rewriting. This does not mean I necessarily think the articles should be kept, just that it would require afd to remove them. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Why remove an entire paragraph? Why not remove chellaney?
Hi, I really disagree with your last edit that removed an entire section that was backed by studies and reported by a professional journalist https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1034809870
You had claimed it was an opinion piece but it's not even an opinion. The TRT journalist was citing research found facts in the article and not opinions. He was merely reporting on what the research like ie - Boston University, Rhodium group, etc have been saying and you are making it seem like it's all his opinions when he is just an objective journalist reporting what the research says. It's not like TRT is a distrusted media source in wikipedia.
In addtion, by your logic. Why not also remove all the "OPINION" pieces of Chellaney? Every article he writes is his opinion with A lack of evidence. If you are neutral, you would similarly remove all Chellany's opinion pieces as they are just his opinions by him that is contradicted by research. If Chellany opinions can stay. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/china-one-belt-one-road-loans-debt-by-brahma-chellaney-2017-01
Then I suggest you do not discriminate against the TRT journalist who was btw not even making an opinion but pointing out hard facts AND i believe you were wrong to selectively remove that entire paragaph. Cheers! Nvtuil (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- I removed a clear-cut opinion piece by Rupert Stone [7] whose opinions were being described incorrectly in WP:Wikivoice. Citing an opinion piece can be permissible but it absolutely must be done with in-text attribution per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. - Amigao (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Feisal Abdul Rauf
Hi. Regarding your edit summary here, when you refer to the source in question as having been "deprecated", do you mean that Wikipedia no longer considers Press TV a reliable source, or were you referring to the fact that the link went dead? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hi. The former. Further context at WP:PRESSTV. - Amigao (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Asking a question
Hi, one week ago I created a article about Afghan singer on Simple.Wiki and her name is here too, can I create a article for her in en.wiki too or it will be spam? ZEP55 (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, ZEP55. It seems like a good endeavor, but it might be useful to review WP:BIO before doing so. - Amigao (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Amigao, thank you for reply, I'm Iranian and really close to Afghanistan people, as Taliban hurting them as you know I want to support them even that support be small! in some parts of Afghanistan people even don't have internet! I want to create a article for "Mojgan Azimi" who is really love her country and have interview with few Iranian TV channels about Taliban and is one of famous Afghan singers. can you please search about her on internet or see her simple and fa.wiki? her fa.wiki created one year ago and I created her simple.wiki one week ago! is there any chance to her have a en.wiki? as Taliban killing the woman now in Afghanistan that can be good support for her. ZEP55 (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Deprecated sources
Look, I don't have the time and energy to spend it politicking and finding out which sources are going to be deprecated, or I would have weighed in earlier. Blocking PressTV from holocaust articles (or on anything else where Iran's national politics are concerned) makes sense, but censoring factual content at SAIPA is truly not a healthy decision. The referenced articles are factual (with a promotional slant) on topics which are simply not covered everywhere. What can we do when the deprecation was applied incorrectly? I want to be able to cite facts, that's all. This is as asinine as prohibiting citing the Daily Mail's coverage of the 1969 British Automobile Show, long before that paper became what it is today. I know you are not the ruler of Wikipedia, but this truly is a slippery slope where a few editors with an axe to grind can remove such immense amounts of content. I bid you to consider the impact of these actions. Mr.choppers | ✎ 12:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- I came here to say something similar. I think I use Russian state sources well. If they are claiming something negative happened, that's important. We can't just use western sources for non-western topics. Secretlondon (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Secretlondon: We have reliable independent sources in Russian. If something important happened in Russia - they report about it. --Renat 14:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- And Russians work there. --Renat 14:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
It looks like you're currently blindly deleting Press TV refs, even in cases where they are probably more reliable than anyone else, e.g. quoting the leader of Hezbollah. Please stop. It's not helpful and borders on disruptive editing. Discuss your changes first, look for alternative sources, or tag them. Don't just delete them. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
You have been warned several times[1][2][3] by other editors, and you continue month after month without even engaging other editors. Here you tagged a direct quote as CN, although a simple search would lead back to an AFP article that was copied in multiple well known reliable sources. By the way, quotes are subject to BLP, so without a reliable source they should be deleted completely, which you didn't do either. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- WP:BURDEN is hard policy and continues to apply to all unreliable sources. A WP:CITENEED tag can be appropriate in some (but not all) cases depending on context. - Amigao (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
References
Discretionary sanction notice
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 03:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
This notice is being given to everyone who has reverted on the page Adrian Zenz this month. It is not an indication that you have done anything wrong. It is to inform you that the page Adrian Zenz is under a WP:1RR restriction until further notice in response to excessive edit warring on the page. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 03:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Least obsessive China watcher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.109.215 (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Re: Shein Article
Hello! My group and I just wanted to inquire on which aspects of our edits you perceived to be "puffery"? We are a group of university students who just want to learn more! Thanks in advance :) Zeynepkaraibrahim (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Amigao,
Please use 'Day Month Year' formatted dates on Australian related pages. Your edit here used a 'Year Month Day' date format not often used in Australia, and different from the rest of the page. Regards, 220 of ßorg 14:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
| Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 |
Mass-removing sources
Hi, please stop mass-removing sources on the basis that they're "redundant". Just because a statement has two or three sources does not mean that they are redundant. It's often useful to provide multiple sources for the same statement, especially if some of the sources are paywalled or in a foreign language. Moreover, sometimes multiple sources are provided because they each support part of the statement, in which case they may all be needed to meet WP:V. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- In some cases, they are just WP:CITESPAM and are quite redundant. - Amigao (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Subsidies in Iran needs update to remain good
Subsidies in Iran has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Please don't restore that source. Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_296#RfC:_Sputnik that source has been deprecated. Meters (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Meters, I think you might have meant that for Bookworm857158367. - Amigao (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, of course. I'm so sorry. Meters (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Edit Warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Genocide Denial. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
FYI Sunderland Renaissance is Antonian Sapphire Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Antonian Sapphire. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Edit Warring on historical page of 1987 Lieyu massacre
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war in the eve of 35th memorial anniversary of the historical article on 1987 Lieyu massacre. This means that you have changed third time of the content back to how you think it should be without reading clearly on the notes and sources clearly. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how much effort and time you spend on it;
- Do not pursue an edit war by believing yourself as the right;
- Read the source and notes carefully before jumping into conclusions to make comments off mark.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Mickie-Mickie (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Conspiracy theorist categories
Please stop adding "Chinese conspiracy theorist" categories to the Wikipedia pages of Chinese journalists. WP:CATDEF says: A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having.
If the article does not describe them as/apply the "conspiracy theorist" label to them, then you cannot add this category. Endwise (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
March 2022
Your recent editing history at History of foreign relations of China shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.= --Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Thank you for your work on Wikipedia's reliability, and for finding the deprecated source I couldn't! Johnson524 (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
Cannot continue vandalism of pages and spreading misinformation
You need to stop vandalizing wikipedia pages with misinformation to use wrong acronyms. Your vandilzation is being used to misinform people. RJS001 (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Petroleum industry in Iran
Petroleum industry in Iran has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Your edits were wrong
You reverted some edits on 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre but here are what the sources say:
- https://citizenlab.ca/2016/11/wechat-china-censorship-one-app-two-systems/ : It says "The government of China maintains tight control over news media" but doesn't say that the CCP censors stuff.
- https://web.archive.org/web/20190603082955/https://www.apnews.com/f298a41082ec4928804f4891171cfb02: Doesn't mention the questioning the CCP's legitimacy.
- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/there-was-no-tiananmen-square-massacre/: this article doesn't even have "CCP" or "party" in it.
So we shouldn't put CCP in these cases.AAAAA143222 (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please respond to determine what is correct AAAAA143222 (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
You reverted my edit
Seeing your talk page I have some ideas why you reverted my edit and I know we wont reach an agreement. So I will take this incident to noticeboard for more opinons. Thank you for your times. --Someone97816 (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
And also can you explain to me why Ta Kung Pao is a UR? Not even the Chinese wiki banned it
Seem like you have a problem with things that is from chinese arent you? You know, it's kind of suspicious when you basically use the excuse of "non-WP:RS" to eliminate the opinions from different sides. And seeing your talk page, I guess this is also not your first time --Someone97816 (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
You are not gonna reply to me?
As expected actually. Gonna take this to noticeboard --Someone97816 (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Can you explain to me why you reverb my edit in the page of Hikvision?
I only add the Chinese gov reaction of it. Of are you suggesting Chinese perpective is not important --Someone97816 (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please see WP:COAT for an explanation. - Amigao (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
You accidentally reverted more than you realised?
Greetings. You reverted my edit on Censorship in China because you saw what I added to the article's introduction as redundant, in your own terms. Even if I may disagree, I can certainly understand that sentiment and stand by the current version of the introduction following your revert. However, in reverting my edit, you also--I believe, unknowingly?--reverted two other more significant (and completely technical) changes I made to the article in the same edit.
I politely ask you to be more considerate of the full scope and content of edits before jumping to revert them in entirety. Thank you. --Adam8410 (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Edit problems
Hi Amigao, I am a Wikipedia education student, and is using Two Centenaries as my stub article, which would have to be submitted in late May. I saw you reverting all my edits on the article Two Centenaries, and would like to ask for clarification on your edits in the article. All sources cited in this article are academic sources and are all peer-reviewed. These sources were written by experts in Chinese politics and economies , so I believe it has a high degree of credibility and authority. I will be continuously working on this article in the upcoming month, so please, do allow me to do so when editing in the future. Thank you very much for your kind cooperation Cm0015 (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Cm0015, while I commend you for wanting to expand the article, your current edits are not (yet) in line with the core Wikipedia policy of WP:WIKIVOICE. Your edits have made the article very essay-like as well as unencyclopedic and non-neutral in tone (see WP:TONE and WP:IMPARTIAL). I have maintained the WP:BESTSOURCES you identified and kept the article in a neutral and encyclopedic tone. - Amigao (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- As the current WP:WIKIVOICE policy is kind of vague, I will try using a more "encyclopedic" and "neutral" tone when editing the article. Thank you for your informative advice Cm0015 (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- You're welcome. When starting off editing Wikipedia, many find it useful to edit an article in smaller pieces (rather than attempting to re-write an article entirely) so as to see exactly what sticks and what does not. - Amigao (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- As the current WP:WIKIVOICE policy is kind of vague, I will try using a more "encyclopedic" and "neutral" tone when editing the article. Thank you for your informative advice Cm0015 (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- At first glance, the sources currently cited in the article mostly look reliable to me. Most of them seem to be scholarly sources. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 11:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Dear Amigao,
Thank you for keeping close eyes on Hugo de Burgh's biography. Could you please stop changing the latest version of Hugo de Burgh's intro back to the old version as some of the information you did are out of date. And the ones published now are according to his latest biography
Many thanks
- You need WP:RS for content that you wish to insert. - Amigao (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Abortion in China
CGTN may be depply flawed as source, but in this instance, it is one of the few sources that we can find online that precise that abortion in china is in fact not available only for health reasosn as of now. The current redaction of tha page state incorrect informations by saying that abortion is available ONLY for health reasons. Access to abortions for non-medical reasons has been restricted, but not prohibited. Snarcky1996 (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Peter Schechter
Worker at NATO's Atlantic Council
Yeah this (idiot) is clearly filled with conflict of interests and should be removed from wikipediaRJS001 (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Mass changes
Please stop mass-changing "Communist Party of China" to "Chinese Communist Party". Both translations are commonly used in English-language reliable sources, and there is no reason every Wikipedia article needs to use the same one. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- WP:COMMONNAME is a core policy here. If you think it shouldn't apply then you're always free to propose an RfC at Talk:Chinese Communist Party. - Amigao (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- WP:COMMONNAME is a policy about article titles. It does not say that every article that mentions a subject should use the same form of the subject's name – that has never been Wikipedia policy as far as I know. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- I see that you've been warned before about problematic mass edits (1 2 3 4 5 among other discussions), and I see that you're continuing to mass-change "Communist Party of China" to "Chinese Communist Party". Please stop these mass changes unless you get consensus for them. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please point to a policy that says one needs to get consensus to make changes in line with a core Wikipedia policy such as WP:COMMONNAME. - Amigao (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- As I explained above, these edits are not supported by WP:COMMONNAME, which is a policy about article titles and does not say that every article that mentions a subject should use the same form of its name. Please get consensus before continuing these mass edits. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please point to a policy that says one needs to get consensus to make changes in line with a core Wikipedia policy such as WP:COMMONNAME. - Amigao (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.—Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- You're doing this again?[8] I thought you had stopped after the ANI discussion. Consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles is clearly against these mass edits. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Consensus actually appears to be for consistency within articles. I don't know what you define as "mass" but it would be helpful if you did so because a vague accusation is not helpful to anyone. - Amigao (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- This one too [9]. In both of these cases, all the mentions were previously written as CPC, and you changed them all to CCP, so this is not about consistency within articles. Your edits are against community consensus and against the prior warnings you've been given about this. Please stop. Endwise (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
How is this moron thinking it’s CCP? Like seriously?! What obviously needs to be done is it all needs to be changed to CPC. RJS001 (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Ensure you label what changes you make.
You need to label all changes you made while stating why you did. As you have not done this please be aware it constitutes as vandalism. Thank you RJS001 (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Pacific Basin
Hi Amigao, for Pacific Basin's wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Basin_Shipping_Limited), please note that the CEO info is wrong now, the current CEO should be Martin Fruergaad (see https://www.pacificbasin.com/en/about/management.php), and also the current links for "Company Profile" and "Our History" are broken, please change to the 2 links below, (https://www.pacificbasin.com/en/about/glance.php) (https://www.pacificbasin.com/en/about/glance.php) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brichan999 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Brichan999, please feel free to update it. - Amigao (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Amigao, in the page its says "Bass Strait, a cargo ship that launched a series of drones that harassed United States Navy ships". In fact this is wrong because in the article...
- (1) it only says Bass Strait is only one of the several civilian vessels that was inside the area, no evidence shows it is Bass Strait who did the harassments.
- (2) The harassments continued even after Bass Strait departed the area, so it shows that the harassment was NOT done by Bass Strait.
- (3) In the update at 16 June 2022, the small dark dots in the images of the Bass Strait are part of the structure of the ship, they are NOT drones.
- Appreciate if you can delete the inaccurate statement, thanks. Brichan999 (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Please feel free to start a discussion on the talk page of the relevant article. - Amigao (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Uganda's airport entry
Is fails to meet notability because it is WP:CRYSTAL Wikipedia doesn't predict future outcomes of non-news. The airport cannot be in default when the loan isn't in re-payment process per the Attorney General of Uganda in the Parliament. Although its fanciful that maybe one day this could happen it isn't news and shouldn't be included as 'fact' when it's not.
(QUOTE)“This contract was signed on 31st March 2015, with a grace period of seven years, the first repayment date is 1st April 2022. Government cannot be in default during the grace period,” Kiryowa said.
On the arbitration process that reportedly favors China, Kiryowa said if Uganda’s rights are violated in the contract, Uganda can defend itself in any part of the world and it doesn’t matter if it is in China.(END QUOTE) Link
CaribDigita (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
July 2022
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Debt-trap diplomacy. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)