User talk:Amigao/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Amigao. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

2022 Sri Lankan protests

Would you mind taking a look at 2022 Sri Lankan protests and give your opinion? FobTown (talk) 01:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Quit Canvassing when you are aware that Amigao has a tendency to remove any information positive towards China like all BBC surveys showing African positive perception towards China, and share your own bias to do the same. [1] Simpleshooter99 (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Amigao appears to be a subject matter expert in this area. And the BBC survey isn't being removed from the article, it is just being taken out of the lede. FobTown (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

No, they completely blanket removed it more than twice. [2] [3] There are no edits of them from either last month or recently, in simply just moving it to another chapter. It was complete blanket censorship of that info. Simpleshooter99 (talk) 02:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Consummate Technologies

Hello, Amigao,

Any time you tag a page for any kind of deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/MFD/etc.), you should post a notification of this tagging on the talk page of the page creator. I see you are using Twinkle and Twinkle ordinarily does this automatically. So, please check your Twinkle Preferences and make sure that the box that states "Notify page creator" is checked off. Then Twinkle will post these notices. Thank you. Liz ^Read! Talk! 02:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Independent Online

Your recent editing history at Independent Online (South Africa) 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. Zaian (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

jrank.org

You are deleting an awful lot of sources without any discussion, sources that are very widely used here. I notice you're targeting subdomains at jrank.org, domains like http://sports.jrank.org. Please start a discussion at WP:RS/N, and then WP:RSP, and get a consensus. Until then, it's better to leave the sources alone. You may well be right, but this mass deleting is too disruptive and looks like vandalism. You've been here since 2009 and have a reasonable number of edits under your belt, so I doubt it's vandalism, so go through the normal channels. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Valjean, further discussion here: WP:RSN#Should_Jrank.org_be_deprecated?

Excellent! It will be good to formalize its status. Thank you. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Penny Dale, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks a lot for helping me in China-related articles! The Account 2 (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

09132022

Hey dear, what's your reason to change page of Kuling ;) Gweilo60 (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Gweilo60, the change was made in accordance with MOS:DL. Amigao (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Huawei, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Bizapedia

Why are you removing this ref as not a reliable source? Can you indicate where there is a consensus that established this? Seems to be nothing on WP:RSN on this subject. - Ahunt (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

My own checking into Bizapedia shows it to be commercial website that provides access to free information and more extensive paid information on companies. Their data seems to be sourced from government records and other business databases and appears to meet all requirements of WP:RS. Since you have not responded here, given any reason to think the site is not reliable and since it appears not to have been discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources I will revert your deletions of this ref to the pages I am watching. We can discuss further if you can provide any information at all on the status of this ref. - Ahunt (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually, this source runs into trouble per WP:VENDOR and WP:RSPRIMARY. The source appears to be an ad farm that claims to access primary records but there's no verification of that. Also, uses of the source seem to fall under WP:OR. - Amigao (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not seeing that. WP:VENDOR seems to not apply in this situation as they are providing at least some substantive information for free on a freemium model, not selling books like Amazon, as the examples there show. Also that content guideline does not prohibit the use of such sources anyway. WP:RSPRIMARY does not apply, as it is not a primary source. The businesses themselves would be a primary source, the government licensing bodies would be secondary, so this is a tertiary source. Using a ref that provides things like business start and end dates is not WP:OR either, as it actually states those dates and other data. OR would be if you went round to their address and saw that the business was closed. If you want this source declared "not reliable" then you will need to get a consensus at WP:RSN to that effect. - Ahunt (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Jin Boyang

You and another user "Horse Eye's Back" deleted a lot of content from this page without any discussion. It doesn't look like you've edited figure skater articles before. Could you please at least look at how other figure skating section articles are written before you delete everything we've been writing? A lot of the claims you've deleted like "His average program components score increased almost a whole point per component compared to the previous year" and "and won his first senior international gold medal at an ISU Championship" and "His placement is the highest of any Chinese athlete competing in men's single skating in Olympic history so far. At the 2018 World Championships, he placed fourth in the short program but dropped to nineteenth overall after ranking twenty-third in the free skate." are factual. Look at what is written in the 2018 World Championships link attached there or even in the detailed results table literally written in that page and you'll see for yourself when it comes to the third claim. How does it make any sense to delete what is literally written right there in the page as being unsourced? Please look at further comments in the article's talk page before you delete again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor120918756 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Who are you?

Where do you come from? What is your agenda on Wikipedia? Are you a Western? 202.9.47.11 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. Shedoesit (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

ZTE

ZTE Corporation, a major international provider of telecommunications, enterprise and consumer technology solutions for the mobile internet, announced it has been awarded the“Best Data Centre Connect Vendor”at NGON&DCI World 2022, held in Barcelona, Spain. https://www.itweb.co.za/content/kLgB17ez3BXM59N4

This is not promo but does fall under the history section. Fiextqbe (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party

Please note there is a discussion on the talk page of 20th_National_Congress_of_the_Chinese_Communist_Party relating to your repeated addition of reference to the Beijing Sitong Bridge protest. Please engage in the conversation before re-adding the content. JeffUK (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Warning

Removing sources from article is vadalism. There different options on UIR's relationship to the Chinese government. It is Wikipeida's rule to present conversal contents in a neutral way. This is to warn you to stop your vandalism. EditQ (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

• Gao, I've initiated a disccusion on Talk:University_of_International_Relations#@User:Amigao. Please hold your Sinophobia and pay attention to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. -- EditQ (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

EditQ, you probably should review WP:ASPERSION and WP:AGF. Amigao (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Center for China and Globalization

The user "Amigao" in late November 2022 systematically deleted the neutral contributions to the article. The neutral contributions that "Amigao" deleted cited information from United Nations Economic and Social Council, Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program, Bloomberg News, NBC News, The New York Times, woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars and European Policy Center - all of them reputable and reliable, non-Chinese government sources - which describe the Center for China and Globalization (CCG) as a "non-government(al) organization." While the neutral contributions have been added, the descriptions of CCG as possibly linked to China's United Front Work Department were retained in the article to show neutrality. The neutral contributions also cited the CCG's own "About Us" to present their version. The neutral contributions also cited one municipal government department of Beijing to show even Beijing considers CCG as a non-governmental organization. In that way, the neutral contributions showed all sides of the story. However, "Amigao" deleted all the neutral contributions and stuck to his/her version that CCG was "founded by" an organization under China's United Front Work Department from one single source. "Amigao" deleted all the neutral contributions with the excuse the neutral contributions are "promotion", which is absurd. Whether a major international thinktank from China is non-governmental or not is a material matter - and in this case, highly disputed. It most certainly is not "promotion." It is apparent that "Amigao" can't tolerate the neutral contributions, which come from reliable and reputable international sources that present all sides of the story in the open. It is highly likely that "Amigao" cannot refute those neutral contributions. It is unknown why "Amiago" insists on citing just one source he or she got. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reluctantbeijinger (talk • contribs) 02:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

2022 COVID-19 protests in China

It is so weird that cover-up can't be considered a neutral point of view as it has been widely used on Wikipedia to describe the responses by the Chinese government, e.g. Chinese government response to COVID-19. I don't really see a NPOV issue when looking at other reliable sources. Would you mind explaining your claim a bit more and perhaps tell more about your other claims regarding NPOV. Thanks! PaintWoodSt (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Warning

Removing POV template is vandalism. I initiated the disscussion in the talk page quite long ago. You've been using biased sources to push your supported views. EditQ (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Censorship of Wikipedia

Do you think this is a legit reason to revert? The material in question seems well-sourced. HollandManners (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC) [4]

Warning

Your systematic regular vandalism and removal of cited content to push POV has not gone unnoticed as evidenced in your overall [edit history] much of the time. You've used Monde to make a claim which was refuted by the African Union, China and Huawei. It was a weak story at best without much to startnd on as several members of the African Union refuted it themselves. But then you continue to push it. You claim to have a problem with me adding the part "Huawei addressed the allegations publicly and denied working with any government to exploit the system or present any backdoors." with a link to [5]. You then claim WP:PRESSRELEASE to re(mo)ve, Q: which one of those numbers is my edit violating of WP:Pressrelease? I want to be clear here. CaribDigita (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

CaribDigita, you should probably get your facts right regarding cleaning up a citation to Le Monde as opposed to adding it (which I didn't). - Amigao (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

You've literally just did AGAIN what you said you don't do above. You took my edit. Took out any references you personally don't like and then emphasized ones you do, which I wanted to illustrate just what I was talking about. Thank you yet again for highlighting your regularized form of censorship. That wasn't a copyedit my friend that was outright censorship again. The sources I added are WP:RS as you claim should be and reference the SAME exact link I had in the first place that you chose to censor. But then again your entire history is repleat of that. [6] CaribDigita (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

CaribDigita, you probably should review WP:PRESSRELEASE and stick solely to WP:RS. - Amigao (talk) 11:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I've reviewed both. Which do *you* claim that [https://www.huawei.com/en/facts/voices-of-huawei/statement-on-huaweis-work-with-the-african-union] violates under WP:RS ? Which item number specifically??? Because I know how you use these circular arguments. So which item # specifically does it fail? CaribDigita (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Citation cleanup

Hi — friendly reminder that when editing citations, it can be useful to make sure any edits are made in line with the existing style throughout the article, i.e. sfns at Special:Diff/1126229817. I've converted them. Also, I think in general it's probably a good idea to preserve citations to individual page numbers if that's how they were written, rather than merge them together into a single cite. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 03:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Request for reconsideration of sources on Hari Sen

Hi Amigao, I saw your post on the 'Edit history' section of my upcoming article on Hari Sen, and looked up WP: REPUBLIC TV. I understand. I shall avoid that. But I do think that an article that appeared in The Times of India on the same event that I used the Republic TV article for, can still be used as a reference. So I shall then use the Times of India article as reference. I hope that's not problematic. Best wishes. Apandeyhp89 (talk) 10:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Re

Wikipedia is free. Nobody is paid to edit. You're being rediculous. You seem to engage in muliple edit wars with multiple editors, pushing views that you support. You don't even know what Neutral Point of View is. EditQ (talk) 07:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

You might want to review WP:PAID and WP:ASPERSIONS. Amigao (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Center for China and Globalization

Hi Amigao, thanks for your oversight on this page. However, I spent quite sometime to update and add factual and verifiable info on the page. I worked on this on my sandbox here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Padibso/sandbox

I then updated the page. The current version of the page which you reverted back has wrong and obsolete info. Also the organisation has recent activities as seen in the WP:RS cited. I'm wondering why you reverted the update. Please could you explain to me. Can you review the update on my sandbox and let me know what I can add or remove. Are there some lines that can be added to the current version?. Expecting your replies. Thanks Padibso (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

You might want to review WP:CGTN and WP:GLOBALTIMES first before trying to insert them into articles. Amigao (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much Amigao. I never knew those two were depreciated.. I really appreciate your help with this. I have removed those two refs from the draft. Here's the updated version https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Padibso/sandbox

Like I said, my only interest is to update the page with correct and current info regarding the center as seen in the sources cited. Please, sorry to take your time, is there any other line you feel I should remove? I hope the write-up meets WP:NPOV? Can I go ahead to update if everything is ok? Once again, thanks a lot. I've learn something today. God bless.Padibso (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

If you want to lessen chances of reversion, it's best to discuss any drastic or controversial proposed changes on the article's talk page first. Amigao (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Amigao. I got your point. But, I am not interested in making drastic or controversial changes. I only make factual and verifiable edits in line with WP:RS and WP:BOLD. So, there's no need raising any issue on the talk page. I'll go ahead to make some of the edits. I'll avoid any edit that is controversial or drastic. Thank you for the insight.Padibso (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Amigao!

Happy New Year!

Amigao,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. I especially appreciate your work on China-related articles, despite the many challenges that come with that area. All the best for 2023, Yeeno (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 4}} to send this message

List of Largest Political Parties

I take issue with your wholesale deletion, on 23 December, of my membership-description paragraph for the reasons you’ve given. I also note that my last publication lasted 5 minutes before the whole paragraph was taken down, which doesn’t seem to indicate the deletion was well considered.

Two points:

1. I agree that it would be good for the Party pages to include their criteria for membership (some do, many do not). However, this List page is a summary and is an ideal place to provide some context, as was my intention, by highlighting that there are major differences in counting methods, which contribute to a wide disparity in the numbers and percentages.

2. Re your comment on non-WP:GLOBAL language: This is a laudable aspiration, which I support, but it shouldn’t be used to discard relevant content (which I believe my membership paragraph is) just because my contribution wasn’t within that global goal. Yes, I used a comparison of UK and US practices, since they are what I’m familiar with, but it is given only as an example, and is noted as such.

I’m minded to undo your edit, but would be obliged of your re-consideration and comment.

Happy New Year. Kokopelli-UK (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Kokopelli-UK, your text could work nicely as a WP:EXPLNOTE in the article, but it is not appropriate for a WP:LEDE. Amigao (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Your point taken - thank you. Membership description footnote now added to the lead-in paragraph. Kokopelli-UK (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Who are you?

Are you a US spy interested in distributing propaganda on China? All your edits have anti-China bias. I think you should be careful about what you edit on Wikipedia. You might be an official from the US government secretly editing Wikipedia. 202.9.46.42 (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

We are all encouraged to contribute material from reliable sources on topics in which we have a sincere interest. @Amigao clearly has a strong interest on the the wide topic of the CCP's effects on the people of China, on neighbouring nations and, indeed, on the health of the world's democracies. I happen to share an interest in this expanding topic and encourage @Amigao to continue the excellent work. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

A Barnstar for your efforts

		Zhonghua Barnstar of Merit
		For your contributions to one institution with two names and the global understanding of the party-state bureaucracy.
		this WikiAward was given to Amigao by Abovfold (talk) on 16:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Social Credit System, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy Chinese New Year!

	恭喜发财！
Happy Chinese New Year!

The Account 2 (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Wingtech

i would like to why you stripped a bunch of data out of this article Ccirulli (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

...discuss why... Ccirulli (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

it is one of my original articles. i need to learn the standards and criteria you are adhering to. Ccirulli (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Ad?

I agree that Berggruen Institute reads like an advertisement. 2603:7000:2143:8500:1C2A:DF35:E25A:E8D5 (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Website names

Just want to get your take on this edit. BBC or BBC News, CBS or CBS News, Associated Press or AP News? My understanding is that "work" or "website" contains the latter of these, the title of the website. Do you understand differently? Bsherr (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in 2023 China balloon incident, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please use only mdy dates. Thanks. {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 23:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Eastern Front (World War II), did not appear to be constructive and have 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. Please actually verify what you remove and not blindly remove links to that site Denniss (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Please discuss on the SUCCESS talk page

Instead of reverting my disupted inline tag, please add your thoughts to the Talk section, thanks.

Hello, Amigao. You have new messages at Talk:S.U.C.C.E.S.S.#United Front?.
Message added 06:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aufumy (talk) 06:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:SPUTNIK Reference Removals Cautionary Note

Hi Amigao, thanks for taking the time to help improve Wikipedia. I noticed that you are keen to remove sources referencing Sputnik, using the WP:SPUTNIK reliable sources consensus.

I would like to try and direct your attention to the edit you made on SU-25. When you removed that reference, it was a named reference. This meant that the subsequent references that depended on the reference were broken. Additionally, you didn't remove the quotations that came from that source. Everything was replaced by a bot because of the broken reference.

I guess I would like to add that I don't completely agree with your wholesale edit removals of sputnik references considering at least in this article's case, the quotes from the government representative were reported by the state news agency RIA which is still currently itemized as "no consensus" on the WP:RS perennial sources list. Additionally, these quotes were picked up by reliable sources and further expanded upon, so it is possible that additional verification was made in order to pass the edit desk.

Happy editing. Inomyabcs (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Likewise, there is nothing wrong with citing RIA Novosti on Chelyabinsk meteor. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#RIA_Novosti in particular. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Nexperia

Hi Amigao, Please refrain from inserting politically biased content. Zootsuitz (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

SASAC

Hello,

A parent company is a company that owns 51% or more voting stock in another firm (or subsidiary) to control management and operations by influencing or electing its board of directors.

SASAC is a special commission of the People's Republic of China, directly under the State Council. It was founded in 2003 through the consolidation of various other industry-specific ministries. SASAC is responsible for managing state-owned enterprises (SOEs), including appointing top executives and approving any mergers or sales of stock or assets, as well as drafting laws related to SOEs.

SASAC is neither the owner nor the parent of any of the companies under its supervision. It is a government commission, not an economic entity. The owner of all of these companies is the Chinese government, hence they are state owned as was stated in the infobox already. It is tempting to think of SASAC as huge holding company but that it is not. These companies do report to SASAC, but they are not owned by SASAC. Hence we should not refer to SASAC as the owner or parent company of any of the Chinese SOEs. Best regards Andro611 (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Deprecated sources

Hi, please do not remove deprecated sources or content sourced to them – WP:DEPRECATION is not the same as blacklisting: Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately (Wikipedia:Deprecated sources). Instead, you're welcome to tag such occurrences with Template:Deprecated inline. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

By the way, this is the second notice you've received about mass removal of Sputnik references. You not only did not respond to the previous one by Inomyabcs but continued with the mass removal. Please stop. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

They are not being removed indiscriminately. Please do not restore deprecated sources (per WP:ONUS) and if you would like to have a discussion to un-deprecate a particular source, you're more than free to propose an RfC at WP:RSN. Amigao (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it doesn't work this way. You CANNOT just remove sourced text only because it's been taken from a deprecated source. And I doubt your rate of 1-2 edits a minute means careful consideration.

I ask you to stop. You've already been brought to ANI and even blocked precisely for the same behaviour, yet it seems you haven't taken this lesson onboard. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Deprecated sources cannot be used to back factual claims, except in strict cases of WP:ABOUTSELF. Also, WP:BURDEN is a core policy that applies here and there are cases where a citation needed tagged is added when a deprecated source is removed. Amigao (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

You CANNOT REMOVE SOURCES OF STATEMENTS. Period. Poor sources can - and should - be replaced with better sources, but it's a damaging practice to replace the actual source with a "CN" template. PLEASE STOP NOW. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

If you think it's "damaging" then you probably should re-review WP:BURDEN. Amigao (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

"User talk:Amigao" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect User talk:Amigao has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 13 § User talk:Amigao until a consensus is reached. Amigao (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

241st Territorial Defense Brigade

Thank you for deleting that unreliable reference. I added it because it came up in search and was in English. Once the warning came up, I could find the reference that was causing the warning. I replaced it with a Russian source stating same information. Also I had a wrong ref for that sentence. So thank you for helping me fix it. Ceriy (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Help on the tricameral parliament

As User:RovingPersonalityConstruct got rid of the tricameral section for no reason, you need to help me discuss it at the Talk:List of legislatures by number of members#Republic of China section. The ROC tricameral parliament still exists in name in the original constitution. Only the Additional Articles applied in Taiwan has the unicameral parliament. -76.68.77.224 (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 visit by Xi Jinping to Russia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barron's.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Chau Chak Wing

HI Amigao. I notice you contnually remove topically-relevant content from Chau Chak Wing. Your edits offend a key pillar of Wikipedia - namely that no single user owns a page, and all have a right to make topically relevant edits or addition. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. I fiurther note that many of your changes constitute soap box issues that are based on speculation and unfounded commentary from 'think tanks'. This material is more suited to agenda driven blogs, not Wikipedia. Ripcord22 (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much dude

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		You keep so many articles sane and encyclopedic by enforcing Wikipedia reliable source policy and other standards. You're goddamn gold. Keep doing what you do. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Paid editing WP:COI

Hello Amigao. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Fu Cong, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Amigao. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Amigao|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Herreshoffian (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

No promotion with Fu Cong. This is a bad-faith warning. Amigao (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Amigao: This reply "No promotion with Fu Cong." fails to answer the question. Do you "expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed"... "such as the one you made to Fu Cong". The words "such as" broaden the scope of the question to include any edit you may have made as a "paid advocate" on this platform. Are you paid or otherwise recompensed for your work on this platform? Herreshoffian (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Source for generic facts??

I'm having trouble seeing how one would either ask for or find a "reliable source" for something as generic as a list of who has held various jobs for periods over a decade (which would be announced on occasions years apart) or that a certain number of people were born within a certain range of birth years (data compiled by looking at their respective articles and present in the relevant 20th Politburo table). So I think you're being overly persnickety on Generations of Chinese leadership. Are you demanding a shedload of individual cites for every individual's age and appointments for what's supposed to be an article aggregating people by their age and career positions? 108.29.145.226 (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Judicial system of China

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Judicial system of China, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

CCP vs CPC

Please refrain from editing every possible mention of the CPC to the unofficial CCP, please. All official party correspondence utilizes the official party name(CPC). Chinese Communist Party (CCP) unnecessarily ethnizes the correct name for the Communist Party that is in China. In the future, I would appreciate an explanation as to why these changes are necessary rather than the very obvious crusade you’re going on. Thanks. 166.181.249.38 (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

You have again failed to provide an explanation for why you insist on starting an edit war over this. I have provided numerous explanations for why your edits are incorrect. Failure to provide proper explanation will result in me escalating this issue. It’s obvious you have an agenda and don’t intend on editing in good faith with regards to this issue. 166.181.249.38 (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

You ought to review the CCP's talk page. You are always free to propose another RfC. Amigao (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles#How should articles refer to China's ruling party? is that editors should not mass-change these. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Safia Shah

Hi, you removed a bulleted entry from the Media coverage section of Safia Shah, stating "need a reliable and non-deprecated source for factual claims, not WP:SPUTNIK". These are not references; the article does not rely on this; and the only fact stated is that Safia Shah featured in a programme on Voice of Russia about 'Carnaby Street's Great Uninvited' – saving endangered English. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Warning

Purposely removing Wikipeida maintainance template is a vandalism. So stop your vandal. It has nothing to do with censorship.EditQ (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at University of International Relations. Amigao (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditQ (talk • contribs)

science.jrank.org

You removed a cite from List of phobias because "need WP:RS for this text, not Jrank.org". May I ask where science.jrank.org (Science Encyclopedia) was declared non-RS? – .Raven  .talk 03:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Informing you of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CurryCity (talk) 11:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

CCCC

Please do not classify "Operations" under "Corporate Affairs". It is a separate concept. Please do not downgrade "Misconduct" to History. Some of it is ongoing, eg, 1MDB investigations and US sanctions. 71.233.216.56 (talk) 07:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Nothing was "downgraded." Just put under sub-headings. Amigao (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Akademik Tryoshnikov

You removed a cite from a source with "no consensus" status without any justification for Akademik Tryoshnikov article. I may fully understand such actions if they are made on any sensitive topic. Yet, information about, for example, ships and their parameters (size or name of engineer) is not such a topic. I find such a formal approach unconstructive and harmful for any encyclopedia. It is quite apparent, that details about most of structures, buildings, cities, mechanisms would be mostly covered by a local press. I would ask to avoid using this approach in future. Thank you. Evgenii.salganik (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

There is very clear consensus that WP:SPUTNIK is not a WP:RS. That said, thanks for finding a better source. Amigao (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Qihoo 360

Your editing on the Qihoo360 page is too personal and prevents others from editing normally. I have clearly told you that my translated official statement is not commissioned by any third party, and it comes from a regular and reliable news website, even from qihoo360 Official website

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at article. additional text WickyNEMEZIZ (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Minor parties

It would be best to mention the purpose of the minor parties in the ideology section so that one could understand what they are for at a glance. In many other List of Parties in [country] articles, such as Israel, Germany and the Netherlands the groups represented in special interests parties are mentioned despite not strictly being ideologies. SelketCadmium (talk) 04:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Those pages list ideologies, not something as broad and vague as "teachers' interests." Amigao (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Are "motorist interests" any different? SelketCadmium (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi

Thank you very much for the collaboration on the Politburo Standing Committee articles. It means a great deal :)

I've created the article "Longest-serving members of the Politburo Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Party" and, if you are interested, I would appreciate you helping me fill in the gaps.

On another note, I've finished with all the PSC. I'll tableise all the Politburos and Secretariats. Then I'll take a break and continue finishing of the Yugoslav and the Eastern European party leaderships before I create articles for all those red links at the Chinese Communist Party template. TheUzbek (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Grigori Voitinsky

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Grigori Voitinsky, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Re

[7] I provided the reason in my edit summary. UIR was authorized to offer Ph.D. on it's own on 2021. Your old information is not accurate. EditQ (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Articles "Government of China" and "System of People's Congress" are the same!

Hi

I've contacted you since, well, you edit many Chinese-related articles and also the politburo articles.

This is the thing: the articles "Government of China" and "System of People's Congress" are the same! "Government of China" is also very misleading - Government of China - means in China the State Council. It also has several inaccuracies, such as stating that China has separate branches of government. All communist states are based on the unitary power structure of the Paris Commune of 1871 in which there were no limitations on the powers of the Commune Council. This article is muddling the fact that the unitary power is the opposite of the separation of powers, and China only has one branch of government, the legislature represented by the NPC. All other state organs, from the Supreme People's Court to the President of the People's Republic of China et cetera, are elected by, answerable to and have no separate powers than those granted to them by the NPC. Notice that the Chinese constitution never uses the term "branch". The State Council is referred to as "the executive organ of the highest state organ of power [NPC]". TheUzbek (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Good points. I've made some revisions to make this clearer. Amigao (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I suggest that we move the article "Government of China" to "Political system of China" or "Socialist political system of China" since I suppose you're against merging this article with "System of people's congress", and state clearly in the lead what the official name of the system is, and how it functions.

We can't, however, describe the system as "Marxist–Leninist one-party authoritarian political system".. What does this even mean? It does not describe anything really. It misleadingly states that China has one party, that the party has an ideology, that it is authoritarian and it is a system, but it does not say what kind of system it is. "System of people's congress" actually does, implied in that term is also "leadership under the CPC", which the lead uses a whole lot of text to describe.

Judicial independence. The point is, and this is also entirely lacking in the article, is communism implies "politics in command". The National Supervisory Commission is defined as a political organ, the Supreme Court as well, the State Council, et cetera. The whole point of the system is that it is not supposed to be politically independent of those in power. Instead of saying it does not have judicial independence we should say clearly what the system is. TheUzbek (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Moreover, "unitary state" and "unitary power" are to very different terms. Unitary state is the opposite of federalism. You can practice unitary power and practice federalism; Yugoslavia did it. TheUzbek (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Very good point. Amigao (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Dominic Ng Biography

Amigao,

I am a relatively new editor and respect your long experience in editing. I am confused through that you undid the deletion in the opening paragraph of this biography that Ng was one of the overseas ethnic Chinese who were invited to attend a meeting of the Chinese People's Political Consulting Conference. Attendance at an inconsequential meeting, even if relevant as part of a bio, does not seem appropriate to be in the lead paragraph. I see that others have questioned that also and have deleted and you un-do the deletes. Thank you. Dpkpdr (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited International Liaison Department of the Chinese Communist Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doubleday.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Living or recently deceased people is a designated contentious topic

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Nil Einne (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Dominic Ng".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

NotAGenious (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Amigao: consider this a warning. If you revert me without taking part in any discussion on the talk page, I will ask for you to be topic banned from all edits concerning living person. WP:BLPRESTORE is quite clear

To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

Despite this, not only have you continued to restore the material which has been challenged as WP:UNDUE for the lead of a living person, you have persistently refused to take part in the discussion or any attempts at resolution. While I don't care that strongly about these removals, I do care strongly that editors edit appropriately in articles about living persons and your manner of editing is simply unacceptable for BLP.

If you wish to continue to make edits concerning living and recently decease persons then you need to participate in the discussion when editors have raised good faith concerns, even new editors who may or may not have a CoI. Since most of the editors in that discussion who feel the material definitely doesn't belong in the lead are new without much familiarity with our policies and guidelines, it may be a brief explanation is enough.

But despite multiple attempts to get you to engage, you've refused to offer even that brief explanation other than some vague comment a long time ago which didn't at all explain why the particular detail is relevant to the subject of our article. This editing is simply unacceptable when it concerns a living person and you need to change how you handle articles about living persons or cease editing them preferably voluntarily.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

My edit was nothing more than a statement of fact, written in NPOV tone and backed up by WP:RS in the body of the article. While WP:AGF is an appropriate starting position, you should probably be aware that those driving attempts to remove that piece of information appear to be largely new WP:SPAs, including at least one with a declared COI so it's not certain that these are truly "good faith concerns" as you put it. In any case, we can let the discussion continue on the relevant talk page. Amigao (talk) 02:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

CSSA edits

Hello, I was wondering how I could implement the views from the collective student group experience from many CSSAs around the country that they have almost zero affiliation with the CCP, since for many of us with officer positions in CSSA, especially UTCSSA, we don't want to be seen as "CCP Pawns" and would like to have zero controversies on our resume. Would a dissertation article work? What are your recommendations?

Thank you for you consideration. Boyangliuu (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Worth starting here WP:RSPSOURCES with WP:GREL sources. Amigao (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I have been reading it, and I'm still confused as what makes the article from New York Times and a dissertation not fit for a WP:RS, I will link these two documents here: [8][9] Thank you Boyangliuu (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

CASS Source

Hi, I'm here for this. It's an "extra" reference, and I'm okay with removing it, but I need to explain the reliability of the source. In fact, this source is not dedicated to Baidu; the original reference link is from CASS (Chinese Academy of Social Sciences [a reliable source]), but dead and only exists in the web archive tool of Baidu, which you can consider similar to Archive.org (Way Back Machine). It's not critically important, just an explanation. Thanks 78.79.162.154 (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Center for China and Globalization

Hello, @Amigao, I'm here for Center for China and Globalization. I'm concerned you have long been actively suppressing a more balanced description of the Chinese thinktank based on reliable sources. You have deleted content based on reliable sources without explanation. You have actively blocked any mentioning any one piece of its published works, including books published at renowned international publishing houses - many of which non-political - by citing WP:NOPROMO, whereas similar Wikipedia entries on thinktanks or scholars list many such items. You have also actively cited WP:NOTNP to block notable events from being mentioned, despite that similar events are freely available on U.S. thinktanks. It seems that you are not interested in WP:NPOV, but solely putting it in a bad light by blocking a more neutral description based on reliable sources, including leading international mainstream media. This is also something you appear to have done with other Wikipedia entries on Chinese mainland institutions.

2601:647:667F:2C20:B4C6:2B36:B9C:53B6 (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Clear Bias

A review of @Amigao's edits show his or her clear bias against anything with alleged Chinese Communist Party and People's Republic of China government links, trying to put them in the worst possible light by cherry picking the most negative reports while neglecting and actively obstructing the citation of more nuanced reports coming out of equally reliable sources. The edits betray his or her shallow, all-or-nothing, black-or-white understanding of the CCP or PRC, mistaking Chinese people or institutions that try to exert positive influence within the PRC as "united front", influencers, if not infiltrators. @Amigao fails to understand the these people or institutions have to survive first and that means they must establish and maintain ties with the CCP and PRC government. Not caring about that at all, @Amigao insists on standing on some moral high ground and looks down on all of them. On institutions and individuals who apparently share the same narrow view as him or her, @Amigao cherry pick the most positive reports while neglecting more nuanced - and thus containing somewhat negative - content. 12.129.159.194 (talk) 05:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Verification

Your source [10] which says "Although Huawei and ZTE were not named, they were not banned from supplying 5G equipment to carriers" does not seem to support your edit [11] of "In 2021, India excluded Huawei from its 5G network". CurryCity (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Template removed

Why did you remove this template [12] again without addressing the underlying concern? CurryCity (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a direct quote from said report with WP:INTEXT attribution. Amigao (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

From which pages? CurryCity (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Page 3 of the report Amigao (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It was essentially attributed to other media sources, however, which is what open source means. Have you checked with the original articles? CurryCity (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The template should be in place for now. CurryCity (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Confucius Institute

The last two paragraphs in the intro to this page are duplicates of earlier paragraphs. I have removed them and undoing my removal of them is incorrect. Sladimort (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

They are not duplicates. Amigao (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

They were, in fact, duplicates. Sladimort (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to seek consensus on the article's talk page first. Amigao (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

If you have the time to reply to me here, it would be ideal to instead use that time to verify that I am correct and delete the two paragraphs that have been written twice. No content is being changed. Sladimort (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The place to discuss is the article's talk page. Amigao (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Confucius Institute. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. Your reverts and warnings to User talk:Sladimort don't make sense, the paragraphs were duplicates. PiGuy3 (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Edits on Temu

It seems there are some strong feelings on the Temu article. Rather than revert the work of editors - would it be possible to provide some specific reasons regarding your reversion? The additions that you’ve reverted have been made in good faith and were not intended to offend or set off an edit war. Your work and experience are very much appreciated. Thanks very much. 1namesake1 (talk) 04:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the additions were not clear vandalism and should not have been reverted without providing reasoning (see WP:ROLLBACKUSE). PiGuy3 (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

November

Hey,

the total revenue and the net profit of Apple is already stated in the given 10-K references. WikiPate (talk) 04:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

cn

Hey,

I saw that you remove many references and replace them with "citation needed". Do you take care that your edits are in line with WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM? So "Doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself" instead of just replacing a reference with cn. WikiPate (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's acceptable. See: WP:BURDEN for the relevant policy. There is also plenty of historical discussion at WP:RSN if interested. Amigao (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Concerns about your editing

Hi Amigao, this is a request for you to observe our restrictions on original research by synthesis and ownership of content. You sometimes ignore them until getting called out on by other editors, misapply them, or emphasize or remove certain words or content without a valid explanation, which is against a neutral point of view. Please review these policies as they appear relevant to the disputes you have been involved in. Vacosea (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ZTE

Telecomreviewasia and Yicaiglobal are reliable or unreliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.64.218.17 (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a question for WP:RSN. Amigao (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

"ZTE provides cutting-edge technologies and product solutions to consumers, government agencies, and enterprise customers around the world." Is this sentence promotional content? 182.64.218.17 (talk) 05:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

State Backed Information Warfare Efforts on Wiki

Educate yourself on state-backed information warfare efforts on Wikipedia

I can't access this - the link doesn't work for me.

Can you update? Would like to read please. Chavmen (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Done. Amigao (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Chavmen (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Global Times as a reliable source

From my slight experience on editing articles here, edits containing a known unacceptable source can't be posted.

In any cases I have added the Financial Times and the Voice of America as additional sources.

If the Chinese, the Americans and the English all say that someone said something, it can be taken as a fact that someone said something. 108.26.243.70 (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Not exactly. You might want to review WP:RS and WP:RSP first. Amigao (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok! The reference to Global Times is gone. Any problems with the Financial Times or Voice of America? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.26.243.70 (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

No because both are considered WP:GREL sources at WP:RSPSOURCES. Amigao (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

G42 (company)

Hi! I noticed you recently made some changes to G42 (company) and I wondered if you had seen the discussion on the Talk page? The answering editor closed it asking for other editors' input, but there hasn't been any engagement yet so I thought I'd reach out.

The request went through rather a lot of formatting changes but I believe the easiest to read and assess is the 27 October version (under extended content).

If you could take a look at any of the points within this request that would be really appreciated.

If you have any questions please leave me a message on my Talk page Oddoso (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Christmas Barnstar
	Awarded to you for your contributions on Christmas Day, because apparently you also have nothing better to do over the holidays than edit Wikipedia! Yue🌙 10:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

Hello Amigao: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:12, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Amigao!

Happy New Year!

Amigao,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
The Account 2 (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

dominic ng vote

Hello Amigao, I am not sure if the notification on the talk article got through to you. But if it did not, then this is to let you know your vote there for the lead proposal would really help move the conversation forward. [13] Or, if you wish, you can put the proposal that you prefer directly into the article as you have done so in the past and indicate in your edit summary that that is your vote. If you did receive the notification, then sorry if this message badgers you but I feel like I have to take this measure of directly notifying you. The discussion has dragged on for more time than anyone could have imagined it would, so I am doing my best to bring it to a conclusion HiFX (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Robert Lawrence Kuhn Page Edits

Hi Amigao,

Apologies for missing some of the conventional practices here on Wikipedia, I thought I added to the talk p[age already but didn't realize going to this talk page is convention. As you may or may not be able to see, I'm fairly new to this. I believe my previous points still hold as far as not having any kind of conflict of interest. Frankly, I didn't realize how much back & forth this would cause.

If there's anything I can do to help clear up the concerns, the only thing I'm trying to accomplish here is not letting my work go to waste. It took a great deal of time and reiterations for me to feel right & balanced by the contributions I made.

Please let me know what I can do! JoshuaJT (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey Amigao!

I've periodically checked for your response but haven't heard back. I figured I'd go ahead and bring my edits back into the world. If there's anything that stands out as an error, I'm happy to discuss!

Hope you had a great holiday and Happy New Year!

Best,

Josh JoshuaJT (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

For wholesale deletions and re-writes, it's best to discuss on the article's talk page first. Amigao (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey Amigao,

I've tried to discuss it on the article's talk page but have not heard back from anyone. The wholesale re-writes you're referring to are a culmination of my edits that I worked on for over a month that out of nowhere got reversed. I've since been trying to make it abundantly clear that I have not violated any COI policy (I work in academia and I am not related in any way) and have contributed to Closer To Truth and Robert Lawrence Kuhn's Wikipedia as a fan of the show.

I'm unsure how else I can help clear things up. Please advise.

Best,

Josh JoshuaJT (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Stahlhelm edit: DRA

Hello Amigao, the source used to show that Afghan Army troops under the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan still used a Stahlhelm was actually a picture of Afghan army troops wearing those helmets. Would it still be considered unreliable? It’s no worries, I will look for more reliable sources. Thank you for your edit! AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Please stop the vandalism

I have noticed that you are engaging in vandalism on the Lenin Moreno page, arbitrarily deleting information. I ask you to cease vandalizing the page. It doesn't matter if you dislike RT as a source due to it being "Russian" or "leftist." Wikipedia is a neutral space, not a platform for political fanaticism or xenophobic behavior. I have also noticed that you vandalize the CGTN page with clearly political intentions; I request you to stop that as well. This is Wikipedia, not Trump's social network, Truth Social. Luparh (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Question

Just had a question about your edit on 2024 Ecuadorian conflict. I know that Telesur is deprecated (the notice popped up with the edit too), but per WP:TELESUR, it says "Telesur may be a primary source for the viewpoint of the Venezuelan government". Would it be acceptable as a citation providing a direct quote from Nicolás Maduro? It is not used as a citation "for factual claims" and I would never attempt to use it that way.

P.S. Thank you for your work on Wikipedia:WikiProject Reliability! Your response time to my edit was pretty quick, which is admirable. WMrapids (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Zhypar Zheksheev moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Zhypar Zheksheev. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because Needs citation for fact stated, plus attitional biography information such as Early life, more Career, Personal life, Achievements and honours (if any) . I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. JoeNMLC (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Amigao. Thank you for your work on Yitu Technology. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Source

I think some of your edits are questionable. Also what do you mean that's not a reliable source? Guaranteegreatness (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Good place to start is WP:RSP. Amigao (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Please DO NOT revert changes I made without reasons

thank you Coddlebean (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Great work on China-related articles! You must've done a lot of research and have a wealth knowledge on this matter. I hope to learn more from you in the future. Best regards, Thomas Meng (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

ANI (courtesy notification)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Inappropriate reverts of many pages by Amigao. Thank you. lizthegrey (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Dan Keen for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dan Keen is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Keen until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Dougieb (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 Undisclosed Financial Stake?

Hello Amigao. The nature of your edits and articles gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Dougieb. The template

This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by {{{employer}}} for their contributions to Wikipedia.

can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: InsertName"},"4":{"wt":"client=InsertName"}},"i":0}}]}' id="mwAi0">

Dougieb, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by InsertName for their contributions to Wikipedia.

. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Dougieb (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC) Dougieb (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

No COI to disclose. Amigao (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Likely being paid by Sinophobic special interest group.

Seriously, what is your problem with me altering the language of CCP to the officially recognized CPC and Communist Party of China? Why are you, or whoever supposedly pays you, so so obsessed with "Chinese"-ifying everything? It's the political party of the PRC in China, and it has an official name, even though the American state department refuses to call it that. As an American citizen who has Chinese friends and respect for Chinese people, I think it is at the very least, our duty as decent people to respect official language and not intentionally scare and mislead about the true nature of China. Unless you're just some dude who really hates China, I believe you have vested interests in incessantly enforcing the disinformative, racist, and Orwellian "CCP" misnomering. If Wikipedia is truly an independent and unbiased organization, they should remove your glowing "twinkle" status. Sincerely yours, American, unpaid citizen who watches YouTube and gets news from a variety of independent sources, Han75 (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

CC my talk page

RE my last message:

Sorry if I came off as harsh in my post on your talk page. If truth isn’t on the side of my allegations of your paid sponsorship for edits on this platform, I will rescind them. However, I find it vaguely strange that the English speaking global population is to be misled about something as banal as the name of the political establishment party in China. I could call the US. Congress the American Capitalist Party, or I could revise KFC to be the Fried Chicken of Kentucky(FCK), but it would be different from all the menus. Even if the media called it the FCK, it would be wrong, and it would intentionally mislead Wikipedia users and annoy KFC corporate.

Why is it different with China? The institution calls itself the Communist Party of China, CPC, not CCP. Why do we have to be stupid on purpose? Han75 (talk) 05:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

It appears Amigao was 'cited' in the past('called out'-cited, not quoted- " " ) for conducting edits that were large & complex in rapid-fire fashion between edits on multiple pages as though the account is being used by multiple people (perhaps in a 'troll-farm' type setting), or some bot file style process that's undeclared officially. This according to the 24-hour block log on 22:39, December 27, 2020. I would not be surprised if there is a perhaps a CIA or military connection possibly as their account seems to be pushing official U.S. government talking points as I see it.

Even going as far as pushing WP:UNDUE to topics which have little importance in the grand schemes of things and then routinely accusing others of WP:COI for edits they do not agree with to get them removed from Wikipedia (and then removes the disputed talk page content to give the appearance the point was never raised here before.) CaribDigita (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Resolving tags for an article you marked as promotional

You had tagged the biography of Sarah Chen (1958; Taiwanese Singer) as written in a promotional tone. The article also had a tag for needing citations. Since then, edits made to the article have improved the neutrality and resolved "citation needed" comments. Please consider removing tags from the article. If it is deemed that some issues remain, please provide advice on what needs to be done. Thanks. Sc2327 (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Restrictions on TikTok in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Please use accurate edit summaries

"ce" means "copyedit". The assumption is that this is a boring edit that just changes the order of phrases or removes an unnecessary preposition or adjusts commas. This Diff is not a copyedit. While not THAT bad, I don't agree with it (it's clear enough from context), but trying to "hide" it as a copyedit is bad behavior. Just say something like "important to emphasize who conducted the campaign" if you must (although, again, it's obvious from context - of course it'd be the government by default). SnowFire (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

TikTok

This may be the fifth edit [14] out of similar ones that you have made and been reverted in the past day or so.[15][16][17][18] It is becoming Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and Wikipedia:Edit warring. Most cybersecurity experts quoted have been saying the concerns are still hypothetical or there has been no public evidence yet. Have you seen the classified briefing? CurryCity (talk) 04:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Nothing at all tendentious about adding in appropriate WP:INTEXT attribution for interviews carried out by CNN. In fact, WP:INTEXT is always required for WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, which is what this is. - Amigao (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Love your input

Hi @Amigao because you've done lots on the topic, there's an discussion here which would benefit from your input, if you could make time.

Best regards,

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Citation barnstar

		The Citation Barnstar
		Thank you for adding reliable sources to articles, helping clean up citation templates, and scrutinizing the use of unreliable sources. Zylostr (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Foreign Policy of China

Hi, I saw you edit Foreign Policy of China. I also saw you are a proponent of fighting online information warfare on wikipedia. Can you take a look at Foreign Policy of China, it seems that one user has made it a propoganda piece rather than a neutral POV article.

Thanks, - AH (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

6th Comac C919 delivery to china eastern airlines

Can I use 'Xinhua' or 'china daily' reference, those are No consensus, and are generally reliable for non political topics. Sayanpdd (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Best to always review the community consensus at WP:CHINADAILY and WP:XINHUA. - Amigao (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Chinese People's Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries

Committee of China's Conference for the Defense of World Peace was the predecessor organization of the Chinese People's Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries and part of the subsequent merger. Please do not remove history to fulfill your anti-China political agenda. TinaLees-Jones (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I try to understand your political activities with the best of intentions, but the obvious anti-Chinese malice that exists in all the edits about you and the objective historical presentation by deleting entries. There are many reports about you on google, I hope you love your own feathers. TinaLees-Jones (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Re

I had already made my claim on the talk page before you deleted it, you should have properly replied to that claim first before maliciously deleting it. Your anti-Chinese stance is offensive. TinaLees-Jones (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

TinaLees-Jones, remember to WP:AGF and discuss on the article's talk page first. - Amigao (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Look for yourself at the timing of that talk page and who was deleted first (you) and who was argued first on the talk (me). Be a good person and don't break Wikipedia rules even if you are anti-Chinese. Respected! TinaLees-Jones (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Registered Agents Inc. for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Registered Agents Inc. is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Registered Agents Inc. until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

CapnPhantasm (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758

Hi @Amigao, thanks for your note. As you restored this item to a rather old version, which disallowed many other people's edits, I have restored it to 23:08, 26 May 2024. I would appreciate it if you could clearly indicate which part needs to be sourced or quoted, and leave a marker there. If you want to remove the whole text directly, I expect a more specific explanation in the revision history. Yoaman (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Yoatari, the removed text contained WP:OR and was not backed up with reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. - Amigao (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Amigao, let's discuss this in detail.

The only words that I ADDED to Controvesory are:

As noted above, General Assembly Resolution 2758 is the official position of the United Nations "concerning a one-China policy" and has not changed since 1971.[12-14] However, there have been attempts by the Taipei government and certain UN member states to reinterpret Resolution 2758 in a complex and multifaceted way.

The first sentence describes the official UN position, which was documented in [11] and [12]. References [13] and [14] are recordings of Secretary-General's press conferences, which also support this description.

The second sentence introduces this section (Controvesory) in a neutral way and serves for a better logic of the text.

I will explain why I made other changes later, but you can explain now why you thought they were "not supported by reliable sources". Yoaman (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Yoatari, please correct me if I'm wrong but there were no reliable WP:SECONDARY sources cited to back any of that up. In general, that article is in dire need of more reliable secondary sources throughout. There is far too much interpretation of WP:PRIMARY sources, which is a form of WP:OR. - Amigao (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The official UN documents and the recordings of the Secretary-General's press conferences are indeed primary sources. They are sufficient to make descriptive claims about the official UN position. Wikipedia:Evaluating sources has already described in which cases we need further secondary and tertiary sources. Therefore, it is an abuse of the "Primary sources" tag to add it to the "Later development" section. Furthermore, as I have already commented in the revision history, it is inappropriate to rely heavily on a CRS report to describe the official US position. Yoaman (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

For contentious topics, it's always best to rely much more on reliable WP:SECONDARY sources than primary ones. Agreed that CRS was being relied on a bit too heavily. Additional secondary citations have been added and more will be added. - Amigao (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Even if you think the UN's position is not neutral, it is bad practice to abuse the rules on sources. Again, we don't need secondary or tertiary sources to describe the UN's official position if there are primary sources, according to Wikipedia:Evaluating sources Yoaman (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Now I go on to explain my other changes. This is a wiki article on the UNGA resolution. Of course we don't have to follow the international rules of procedure exactly, but it's still important to provide a focused, balanced summary of the parties involved.

I think you are also aware that the version of Controvery that you have tried to restore is all about cross-strait relations and lacks focus on the resolution. That is why I feel it necessary to add an introductory paragraph.

Finally, why are these German analysts important? Yoaman (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Correction: American analysts, not German Yoaman (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

No issues with an introductory paragraph as long as we can back it up with something beyond primary sources. - Amigao (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

See comments above. Please review Wikipedia:Evaluating sources Yoaman (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:EVAL, "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims require a secondary source." - Amigao (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Quoting official United Nations position papers ≠ “interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims” Yoaman (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

No issues with direct quotes from primary sources within reason (or, in essence, point #3 of WP:PRIMARY). - Amigao (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Yoatari Lil bibby Boy Jarvis Landry via Ruben 24.228.214.169 (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi! Please be careful with your edit summaries, since you deleted content referenced to a Columbia University Press book in an edit that only gave additional context and citations as an edit summary. This is important to be mindful of because "mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading". Thanks! — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi Amigao :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is SPA at Talk:Gurbaksh Chahal. Thank you. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Dee Hsu's Views

Hi @Amigao, please factcheck your edit about Dee's views. The RFA misreported here. Enrico Chou (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Please do some basic fact-checking before strangely and repeatedly adding fake news to Wikipedia. Also, stop calling others' fact-checking paid promotion. It only takes a few seconds to check her Weibo and see that the RFA misreported this. Try to find even one piece of reporting to corroborate your claim about her reposting CCTV, which she never did. Enrico Chou (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

There are numerous instances of her publicly supporting the KMT and calling herself "Chinese" on TV. You can easily find one of these to show her views. There is no need to cite fake news. Enrico Chou (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Primavera Captial - 26th June undid revision

Hi Amigao,

Thanks for overseeing the edits I had done & for bringing to attention that NYTimes is unreliable.

Would like an opportunity to explain the edits:

1. The current statement on the page (which was brought to life again on 26th June) sounds a bit biased, specially since even FT (which is added a reference for those lines) has added the below lines to it's article at a later date to make it sound more neutral: "Primavera Capital, the firm later founded by Fred Hu, has subsequently stated that he is not a member of the CCP or any other political party and was not a CCP member at the time when he was an executive at Goldman Sachs."

FT article link: https://www.ft.com/content/eac99fd9-0c30-4141-821a-45348f61c113

2. The other references added for the statement mention 'alleged' ties:

The below statement in Guardian: "DeSantis stripped four private schools of state scholarship money, alleging without evidence they had “direct ties to the Chinese Communist party”

Guardian article link: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/02/ron-desantis-florida-private-schools-china-communist-party

I believe as Wiki editors we need to walk the thin line and leave some space for neutrality. Hence, I edited the statement.

Please do let me know your thoughts on the above.

Thanks WorldPeace888 (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Best to have this discussion on the respective articles' talk pages. Thanks. - Amigao (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Amigao

I have added the message on the article's talk page as requested. Thanks WorldPeace888 (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Amigao,

Excuse me for bothering you here but I sorted our the FT link difference & updated the article talk page.

It seems FT had made edits to their article (at a later date) & republished it. Hence, there are two links for the same article, the one you referred was old/archived link. So, I shared the latest one in my reply.

Following up for your reply to ensure I haven't missed anything.

Please do let me know your thoughts. WorldPeace888 (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Amigao,

Appreciate your attention on this topic page & trying to find a middle ground.

However, I don't agree with the edits you have made & since there was not consultation on the 'factually incorrect' statement that you added on the page, I have opened a DRN.

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Primavera Capital Group

Hope we can resolve this amicably, also this is not personal. I appreciate the inputs you have provided & the information you have shared including the trusted and untrusted references etc.

However, DRN has been opened since we clearly have difference of opinion on the edits under discussion & a neutral 3rd party can help resolve this - whichever way it goes. Thanks. WorldPeace888 (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Primavera Capital Group".The discussion is about the topic Primavera Capital Group.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Dumplings for you!

	Dumplings for you!
	Thanks for the hard work :D Coddlebean (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

SOCKSTRIKE

Hi Amigao. Regarding this edit, I realize that this editor is blocked indefinitely, but the log doesn't mention sockpuppetry. Is there any evidence that they were blocked as a sockpuppet? Kanguole 18:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Came here with the same question, it appears to be a CIR block, not a sock one. CMD (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kanguole. I probably should have put a better edit summary in for the strikethrough since the account was indeffed for a multiplicity of issues (WP:NOTHERE, etc.) but not as a known sock per se. - Amigao (talk) 01:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. WP:TPO is clear that strikethrough is only to be used for cases of sockpuppetry or block/ban evasion, so I will revert these. Kanguole 07:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Shang Wenjie Page

Hey :) I just saw you restored the old page. I'm currently facing the same issue in the German version considering the Baike Baidu sources. I now understand that they are not good sources and wrote a much shorter version of the article with better well-researched sources (Online News Articles etc.), so if it'd be okay I would upload that version tomorrow. If you still don't like it, we can talk about it or you restore the old (current) version once again. Would that be a deal? :D Wellensittich02 (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal, reference from Global Times

Hi, you deleted some text and citation because of Global Times is not a reliable and non-deprecated source for factual claims. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Wall_Street_Journal&oldid=1237783922

However, the citation is not there to substantiate a fact. The text is citing an editorial opinion of Global Times, for which the only appropriate source is the specified Global Times article.

Please could you review, and if you are in agreement, restore the text and citation. 14.201.39.78 (talk) 05:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no such usage carve-out for WP:GLOBALTIMES op-ed pieces. - Amigao (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Amigao, please review WP:RSOPINION and WP:RSEDITORIAL because this is a reliable sourcing for editorial content. It is not factual content of a kind where WP:GLOBALTIMES would apply.

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. Editorial commentary is a reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor.14.201.39.78 (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Not for WP:DEPREC. You might consider taking the question to WP:RSN for further elaboration. - Amigao (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

August 2024

Hello, I'm Lachielmao. I noticed that you recently removed content from Telecommunications in China without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. If there is new, reliable information concerning the statistics you removed, provide it, if not leave it in the article. Lachielmao (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Those edits were not unexplained at all. You might want to first read my edit summaries on those. - Amigao (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits

Hi, thanks for taking a look at the mess that is currently the articles related to Doping in China and cleaning them up. Could you also check concerns and controversies at the 2024 Summer Olympics where the same group of editors are pushing an increasingly pro-China version of events? Their latest edit. Pizzigs (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Amigao:, they continue to push their preferred versions but I don't want to get involved for a while because the previous entanglement with these editors got me blocked for 48h for edit warring. The other editor was also blocked, but still it'd be better for a more experienced editor to take a look. Thank you. Pizzigs (talk) 07:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Li Ziqi (vlogger)

Hey! Can I know the reason for your this removal, that you have not mentioned in the edit summary? ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 19:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you please provide a diff? Thanks. - Amigao (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2024 (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. MingScribe1368 (talk) 04:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for your diligent and commendable efforts to defend Wikipedia from malicious actors! Normchou ^💬 01:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Sima Nan, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Please don't stealth revert changes like you did with [19]. This page was purged as part of a CFD that @HouseBlaster: just closed. Mason (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Advice request

Hi @Amigao, I saw your userpage and thought you might be able to offer some advice in case you have been in my situation previously. I have come across an editor that I am upwards of 80% sure is an undisclosed operative on behalf of a foreign government, and am wondering whether you had any advice on how to proceed. Superb Owl (talk) 03:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

For starters, get as many eyes on the relevant article(s) as possible. Is there one article in particular where your suspicions are acute? - Amigao (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Electoral fraud in the United States is the main one, but the editor largely follows talking points of US adversaries on topics like immigration, etc. and editing pattern/interests give off hints of a possible Russian operative while (mostly) staying within the rules of Wikipedia. Superb Owl (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Please desist from edit-warring and from reverting edits

Please desist from reverting edits and edit-warring, especially on the anti-Chinese sentiment page, by removing important neutral and highly relevant information that has been stated concisely and which is amply supported by academic citations. MingScribe1368 (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You might consider reviewing WP:ONUS and also WP:AGF first. Amigao (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm having the same problem with @Amigao. I will look, but apparently, he is making round-the-clock changes with a particular objective. He has made almost 50 changes to random articles on China in the past 12 hours alone. Either this is a shared account or a bot. DavidRJD (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

This account is a highly productive editor and have seen no indication he is a bot or shared account. Please provide evidence in link form before making these accusations, otherwise please strike through your comments. Superb Owl (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm going about working with Wiki incorrectly, so I will step back from editing to see how I can better engage with this community. The vast majority of editors in this community are trying to do the right thing; I have just had the same experience as the initiator of this thread. I should have adequately considered the number of issues (state actors, corporate employees trying to advertise, etc.) that WIki deals with daily.

My assertion comes from looking at his usage logs from the user where (for example) on October 25th, he made 11 edits to 11 separate users' talk pages within a 4-minute timeframe. (10/15/24 2:21-2:24). There are many examples where edits are made simultaneously on different pages to different articles. Making substantive additions to multiple articles with matching time stamps looks odd. I can produce other examples. Here is an example where there are 9 edits in 2 minutes.

• • 02:58, 15 October 2024 diff hist  +13  m Alexandra Wong clean up, typo(s) fixed: Mainland China → mainland China current thank Tag: AWB
  • 02:57, 15 October 2024 diff hist  +1  m Hüseyincan Celil →Extradition from Uzbekistan: clean up, typo(s) fixed: March 27, 2006 → March 27, 2006, current thank Tag: AWB
  • 02:57, 15 October 2024 diff hist  +18  m Steven Creyelman clean up, typo(s) fixed: Chairman → chairman current thank Tag: AWB
  • 02:57, 15 October 2024 diff hist  +1  m Chinese government interference in the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections →First report: clean up, typo(s) fixed: inteference → interference thank Tag: AWB
  • 02:57, 15 October 2024 diff hist  +23  m 2024 visits by Viktor Orbán to Russia and China clean up, typo(s) fixed: Furthermore → Furthermore, current thank Tag: AWB
  • 02:56, 15 October 2024 diff hist  +3  m 1989 Sino-Soviet Summit clean up, typo(s) fixed: from 15–18 → from 15 to 18, two year → two-yearthank Tag: AWB
  • 02:56, 15 October 2024 diff hist  +1  m Embassy of China, Tel Aviv →History: clean up, typo(s) fixed: September 15, 1989 → September 15, 1989, current thank Tag: AWB
  • 02:56, 15 October 2024 diff hist  0  m Consulate General of China, San Francisco clean up, typo(s) fixed: New Year's day → New Year's Day current thank Tag: AWB
  • 02:56, 15 October 2024 diff hist  −6  m Embassy of China, Paris clean up, typo(s) fixed: May 1, 2024 → May 1, 2024, (2), ’s → 's (2)current thank Tag: AWB
  • 02:56, 15 October 2024 diff hist  −1  m Embassy of China, Canberra clean up, typo(s) fixed: ’s → 's current thank Tag: AWB

I will strike the comment does not find this suspicious. DavidRJD (talk) 05:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

These are all tiny edits that take maybe 10 seconds each so I do not find these suspicious. If they were big edits, then yes, that would be suspicious Superb Owl (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I will be the first to admit that as I've investigated this further, I've gotten even more confused. This is why I'm taking a break from editing until I better understand how things work. I do think many of the edits are rather substantive.

Thousands of edits are made under this account using the IA Bot interface, so my assertion that this account uses bots seems true. However, the bots are mainly utilized not for nefarious purposes but to correct citations, etc. WP:AGF.

I will strike that comment based on your representation. DavidRJD (talk) 03:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

How should I use depreciated sources?

Hi, I was the one who added the RT and Sputnik links to the Pierre Sprey article. Ironically I was citing them specifically because of their clear state bias and unreliability, as the fact that Sprey would interview with such organizations (multiple times) is the notable fact I was wanting to include.

In that case what's the appropriate way editors should treat such links? Should I have included that "depreciated inline" that you added? Because that makes it seem like the source should be changed when... well it feels a bit convoluted to cite something other than the interview to source said interview existing. TaqPCR (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Deprecated sources can only be used in WP:ABOUTSELF situations, which this seems to satisfy. - Amigao (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok sounds good. Though does that mean the "depreciated inline" tag should be removed because the source is being used appropriately, or left to signify that the source is generally bad even if useful here? TaqPCR (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

It's still a useful tag. The source remains deprecated even though it can be argued that WP:ABOUTSELF applies. - Amigao (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I figure instead of starting a new topic I can tack onto this one -- I've reverted your edit here on this exact basis -- the source was being used in an WP:ABOUTSELF situation, not for the veracity of the information contained therein. Specifically, a link to a Global Times editorial can be used as a reference for the claim that the Global Times published said editorial. ⇒SWATJester ^Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 21:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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; read about 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. ⇒SWATJester ^Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 05:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Disinfo

I didn't know of disinfo until I saw your comment. Help me navigate that website please. How is this disinformation? The WaPo article cited says "The evidence shows that Israel has carried out its war in Gaza at a pace and level of devastation that likely exceeds any recent conflict, destroying more buildings, in far less time, than were destroyed during the Syrian regime’s battle for Aleppo from 2013 to 2016 and the U.S.-led campaign to defeat the Islamic State in Mosul, Iraq, and Raqqa, Syria, in 2017." VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

EUvsDisinfo typically has the relevant outlets/links to the actual disinfo (or screenshots of them) on the left and a Summary/Response section that explains what and how is being distorted, falsified, etc. - Amigao (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes I see that and can you explain to me how exactly is the above link a distortion or falsification? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

What is untrue is the Telegram link/screenshot to the left of the page that distorts the underlying WaPo article. The issue was not with the WaPo article per se. That is what the EUvDisinfo page is explaining. - Amigao (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes and what exactly is the issue with the Telegram screenshot? It is clear that Israel's destruction in Gaza is greater than the destruction in Aleppo? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

EUvsDisinfo was not disputing the contents of the WaPo article, only the distortion of it. That is quite clear from explanation in their "Response" section of the link you provided. - Amigao (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)