User talk:Amigao/Archive 1

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at The China Press, you may be blocked from editing. Matthew hk (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Matthew hk (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Please stop removing Global Times sources without discussion, especially without replacing it with better sources. There have been multiple discussions on Global Times and there is no consensus that it cannot be used. It's a biased source, but generally ok for uncontroversial facts. Please see

Hello, please use a more descriptive edit summary than clean up when you remove sources for no obvious reason. In this case there is still some sentence left from the original revision (for instance "BBG became" etc.) but arguably not enough to still need the attribution. If you checked this, it would have been useful to mention it in the edit summary. Nemo 07:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

You've wholesale removed long-standing text claiming that they are "self-promotional". While some of the passages you removed did seem a bit fishy imo, you seem to be focused on removing any material (cited or not) that justifies why Huawei has been so dominant. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Amigao, thanks for your warning. Here is the solution I would like to propose: since it is so important for you to include the two sources regarding what Jiusan Society is, I will add more sources to make it more balanced. I can see from your "talk" page that there have been some wiki wars you were involved, and I'm glad that you are still able to edit. I certainly hope this will not lead to another war. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highthill (talk • contribs) 23:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Amigao, I cannot find the mentioning of Jiusan Society in the three articles you cited to support "Jiusan Society" is being "effectively controlled" by CPC. So I have to take it off. With all due respect, I would like to see you add it back when it comes with source of the information. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highthill (talk • contribs) 00:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Amigao, you still added the content without citing the source of infomation or citing wrong source of information. I can only assume it is based on your personal perception. And you deleted the source of the information I added without giving explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highthill (talk • contribs) 12:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The wordings in wiki need to be neutral and impartial. Please make discussions before you change.

You need to make discussion and concensus and follow the neutral point of view policy in Wikipedia.

You'd better stop using inbalanced sources. You can see from the "Notable alumni" section that students in that school are regular students not intelligent personnels. It is a normal university, not intelligence organization with offices. You are overblowing some biased organization's view "The university is bureaucratically subordinate to the Ministry of State Security" .

talk

) 05:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Today you edited the Global Times article and reverted my contribution. I cited two sources as well. You called my contribution which was two, intelligently-worded sentences a “very poorly worded phrase”. I was just wondering if you are sober or if you need some help. Here is the link in case you have sobered up. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonagastrich (talk • contribs) 07:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC) Jasonagastrich (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Jasonagastrich, please consider the notice about

WP:NPA on your user talk page. Regards, HaeB (talk

) 00:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Jasonagastrich (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Please respect WP:NPOV. You and a group of other editors are literally turning this place into a vehicle for anti-China activism. You have no right to keep deleting content from CGTN because it doesn't fit your negative narrative--Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Amigao made good edits, putting quotes like that in the lead that aren’t found anywhere in the body is not respecting NPOV or how we generally do things at wikipedia. Please refrain from the personal attacks, I will be placing a warning on your talk page.

Horse Eye Jack (talk

) 17:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You are the one requiring a warning as you are keep deleting cited content by reliable sources. You are using this website for activism.--Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Please be advised that this is a content dispute, so there is no exemption to 3RR for reverting. Please do not make any further reverts to the page. —C.Fred (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You have arbitrarily removed the newly-added source from the Asian Times on "Wang Huiyao" page, saying it does not support the statement that CCG has released an open statement to deny the allegation. It was clearly written and cited in the article, and I don't know why you ignored it. I advise you to give enough respect to the source added by other people for legitimate reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highthill (talk • contribs) 15:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dahua Technology. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Please don't add hoax to wikipedia (Special:Diff/914162848). Your citation https://www.dahuatech.com/upload/2019/04/30/1556590642554i8zji.pdf clearly stated that Dahua Technology is owned by a person Fu Liquan for 36% Matthew hk (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Matthew hk (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe it's important to note here that following discussion with administrators, there was no evidence established that there was any vandalism on the article in question. The Little Platoon (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Please stop changing the acronym CPC to CCP, these edits are completely pointless as CPC is still the official acronym no matter what is commonly used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.112.227 (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I was able to obtain a mirror of your The Australian source, which mentions no Communist Party links. The most direct quotation of any link I could find was: The Xinjiang Association has no office, no telephone number and holds many of its functions in conjunction with the consulate.

The wiki links for monastic residences at

@Amigao Stop vandalizing the page. You are also disrupting my editing. Your talk is full of similar complaints. Just stop! Pasdecomplot (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Amigao Kirti Monastery was not linked before in subsection, nor the others. Each subtopic in subsection relinks them. And you delete links but add link to Chinese govt hardliner - matches pattern of the other complaints listed here. What's with that pattern? Pasdecomplot (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Amigao reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: ). Thank you. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 04:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Sinicization of Tibet 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.
Required for AN3 report CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 04:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this is relatively recent (claiming Ming Pao has a pro-CPC/CCP orientation without sourcing is one step removed from vandalism). In my view, tinkering with infobox / metadata is not far-removed from category-related disruption. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 04:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Amigao: A short note to say I admire the many contributions you are making. I see the fix ups you and they are always valuable. I would love to see you interacting with other editors too! It's how we get things moving! The Little Platoon (talk) 04:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey Amigao, I second what The Little Platoon says about interacting with other editors. On this user talk page, there are quite a few attempts to start a discussion, warnings et cetera that go without any reply from you. Now, it is my impression that you may be correct in many of these cases, but the lack of response makes you look bad.

If I may make a recommendation: just give a short reply to such things in the future, just a link to their user page (so they get notified) and (a) if you think you're right: a bit more detailed explanation of your reasoning behind the edits (b) if you did something wrong: "I see I made a mistake" or something like that. It would go a long way. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 09:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. It seems

@ItsPugle (I am here because somebody else asked me a question about this user) It's just using IABot's web interface, not manual or with a script. That edit was pretty useless, as only links added very long ago aren't handled automatically, and also because two of the linked archives are of "Please subscribe to continue" pages. On the other hand, I don't really see any harm in it...? Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 10:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC) (Amigao: this is intended as an example)

@

ping

on reply) 11:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, you seem to be edit warring with

Per Wikipedia:Deprecated sources#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources, source depreciation is not a blanket ban, and there are reasonable uses for using them, for example in articles specifically about the propaganda mouthpiece, or in articles about propaganda related to the mouthpiece. Indiscriminate tagging such as this is counter-productive, in my opinion. This article is specifically about Chinese propaganda, of course it would need to cite what Chinese propaganda outlets say. --benlisquare_T•C•E 23:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with your reversion as this article is specifically about propaganda/disinfo, as you pointed out. Amigao (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

You have violated the three revert rule by removing efforts to add books and citations to a page. (SupplyRoute (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC))

Hi Amigao,

• Regarding bot-like mass editing:
  • Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity. For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that are a) contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked.
  • Users who read messages or edit summaries from bots will generally expect a high standard of cordiality and information, backed up by prompt and civil help from the bot's operator if queries arise. Bot operators should take care in the design of communications, and ensure that they will be able to meet any enquiries resulting from the bot's operation cordially, promptly, and appropriately.
• Discussion is called for, [...] if you think the edit might be controversial or if someone indicates disagreement with your edit (either by reverting your edit and/or raising an issue on the talk page).
• Fait accompli actions, where actions are justified by virtue of being already carried out, and difficult to reverse, are inappropriate.
• When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion.

In a nutshell: Please respond to people raising concerns on your user talk page, before making any further similar edits, or you may be blocked from editing to avoid further disruption.

Your edits may well be fine; I made similar edits a while ago. However, when people approached me about them, I took the time to write friendly, detailed answers and eventually stopped making these edits due to the concerns. Refusing to respond to concerns about your mass edits, and discussion-less restoration of reverted mass edits, are not acceptable.

Thanks and best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Pursuant to the above message as well as requests by multiple users to include (

If there's policy stating that a certain frequency of

WP:DEPREC edits is somehow "beyond the pale," please refer to it and I will be happy to adjust appropriately. Amigao (talk

) 19:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

^^The above facetious attempt at a blatant deflection is against the spirit of

WP:BOTCOMM. You know very well I did not revert your other recent edit on the same page, the "beyond the pale" descriptor applied to the most recent removal. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language

) 19:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why

WP:BOTPOL is being referenced here since no bots were in play here. Amigao (talk

) 19:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so

WP:AN/I thread on your non-collaborative conduct is in order. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language

) 19:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to add that you have been tagged repeatedly in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Mass removal of content on China-related articles in the last 48 hours in a discussion started specifically over your mass edits, so it should be abundantly clear that people are taking issue with your current editing practices, and the very least you could do is respond. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the edits of Amigao are out of control and not reflecting general norms and policies on this site. There seems to be a consistent problem here. He is violating the three revert rule and being unresponsive to those who are upset. (SupplyRoute (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC))

Please do not abuse the Deprecated source removal tool as each case is individually unique, hence requires to be reviewed properly to the point case by case. You repeatedly removed the reference in the 1987 Lieyu massacre article originated from the official archive of Nanhua county (General Zhao's home town), Yunan province, whereas his families on both states never denounces the source and the fact of referred personnels either. It is inappropriate to exclude every single information from an open resource such as Baidu Encyclopedia without examination, only because its average evaluation rate as unreliable, otherwise even Wikipedia would be subjected to mass deletion by your same logics. Sincerely, Mickie-Mickie (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Amigao. I am just letting you know that I have converted the

Hello. Could you make an effort to find a replacement source when you delete Telesurv references rather than just tagging it with ^[citation needed]? Thanks, Number 57 18:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:GOODFAITH is important here and that's why a ^{[citation needed]} tag is appropriate. Amigao (talk

) 00:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Number 57: This has been a recurring problem. There is no way that with their WP:BOT-like speed of editing they have strived to find replacement sources for each removal. An (Article) namespace partial block may be looming. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:ANI and I will support a topic ban on source removals without replacement if Amigao does not commit to it themselves. Number 57

20:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Good point and duly noted. Amigao (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Yet you continue to remove sources, there's a template to place beside bad sources {{Deprecated inline|certain=yes}}. The latter parameter ensures there is no question mark, since this is a verified bad source. BFG (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Deprecated sources can still be removed just not indiscriminately per

WP:DEPS. Each is reviewed for context prior and some do remain. Amigao (talk

) 13:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The policy says very distinctively it's not a retroactive ban. Removing a source and leaving nothing in it's place is way worse than having an unreliable source, of course marked as such. An unreliable source leaves context which can be used to find a suitable replacement. If you positively determine a statement is unverifiable, then you should rather go ahead and remove it. BFG (talk) 12:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure why you keep removing one of my citations on Tim Naish page. It is a legitimate reference. I would appreciate it is you go to my talk page and explain your thinking. Thanks Realitylink (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi there I am uncertain about why Global Times is not an acceptable reference point. I can see from their Wikipedia page that they are a voice for the Communist Party, but the citation in the article for Tim Naish is somewhat perplexing as it does not in any way indicate bias or propaganda. Naish is a respected scientist in New Zealand and unless the information was taken without his permission, I see no reason to judge his call to allow Global Times to publish it. Surely even on sites like this, we can have the discretion to read any citation carefully before posting - as I did in this case - and make a call ourselves? I am really interested in the process here. Editors need to have lots of discussions and I agree in principle with the policy. Greg Realitylink (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The entry on Global Times at

WP:ABOUTSELF. Amigao (talk

) 21:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that.Realitylink (talk) 07:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Amigao. I noticed that you removed the short descriptions from two articles (Axios (website) and Global Times) but you didn't provide an explanation. I'm curious why you did that. Thanks – Anne drew 23:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello. In both cases, the Wikidata page description was either the same or a bit more precise/accurate than the one on the Wikipedia article. In such cases, the Wikidata description becomes the default that appears. Hope that helps. Amigao (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the quick reply. – Anne drew 23:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I had the same concerns. Please provide a more descriptive edit summary in the future. --Hipal (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Amigao, I've previously seen the Sputnik new agency used as a source in many wiki articles, so I wanted to understand the reasoning behind your removal of this source in the Turkish diaspora article. Could you please let me know what makes it inappropriate here but ok someplace else? I wanted to make sure I'm following all wiki rules. Thanks in advance. Sseevv (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The entry on Sputnik at

WP:ABOUTSELF. Amigao (talk

) 15:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Amigao, thanks for your work with deprecated sources. Can you please review these edits ([2], [3], [4])? I think these uses of Sputnik might fall under acceptable use guidelines. The concern with Sputnik has been that they are biased and publish Russian propaganda, which is hardly the case in the examples I provided which are all very uncontroversial. For uncontroversial cases, I believe we should replace Sputnik references with other ones rather than removing them.Alaexis_¿question? 10:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

FYI, I've raised this as a general issue at Wikipedia_talk:Deprecated_sources. I hope it doesn't come across as personal, I believe that this is an important issue and that the community would benefit from clearer guidelines. Alaexis_¿question? 20:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

You need to verify that the People's Daily post actually claims what Palmer claims, and not blindly trust Foreign Policy or Palmer to accurately represent their quotings. Here is the actual verbiage from the post:

#COVID19 did not start in central China’s Wuhan but may come through imported frozen food and packaging: experts... According to an earlier Italian study, antibodies specific to Sars-CoV-2, the official name of the coronavirus, were found in blood samples collected in a lung cancer screening trial between September 2019 and March this year.

It is a stretch to interpret this as a claim of a Western origin of SARS-nCoV-2 in the voice of PD, only that PD is claiming that it did not originate in Wuhan.

As to your second, poorly explained wording attempt, you need

WP:MEDRS applies to medical claims, not claims regarding simply the text that a newspaper published. Also, no claim of "Western" origin was made in the statement, only that it was "imported." Big difference. Amigao (talk

) 00:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

No, WP:MEDRS applies to any claims on the origin of a virus, which is what this is about. And, this is what Palmer is quoted as:

CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Not quite. This is a statement regarding a newspaper making a claim about the origins of the virus. There's a difference. Regarding the claim itself, it just happens to be a well-documented piece of misinformation, which is why it is on

misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic in the first place. Amigao (talk

) 01:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS does not make exceptions for statements regarding newspaper claims (in this case, Palmer's false reporting). Onus in on you to demonstrate to the contrary.

well-documented piece of misinformation No it is not, the misinformation mentioned in that section before your edits today is relating to: 1) U.S. army or government bio-engineering; 2) mis-representation of Remuzzi's reporting. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect. See the first paragraph in the sub-section "Origin of Virus". Amigao (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

This is an inexplicable failure of reading comprehension. All three non-opinion refs (CNN, WaPo Shih, AFP) are about U.S.-related conspiracy theories. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

They are about a particular conspiracy theory that blames the U.S. for the origin of the virus, to be precise here. Also, might be worth reviewing

WP:NPA. Amigao (talk

) 01:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

That, as you are fully aware, is separate from claims of the virus being introduced via imported meats, which is what the aforementioned PD post is about. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Amigao: I really appreciate your valuable contributions re Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I believe the following discussion is relevant to your work. It would be great if you could take a look and provide your insight. Thanks.

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Xinhua_News_Agency

Normchou (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. More so than Xinhua, China Daily is known for propaganda and disinformation campaigns. Amigao (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. It would be great to have a discussion in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard on China Daily as well. Normchou (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It came up a few months ago here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_305#China_Daily and it seems there might be some interest in an RfC on it. Amigao (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Fully deprecated sources removed are replaced with a ^[

WP:ABOUTSELF is not applicable. Amigao (talk

) 13:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

So this shows that you aren't checking before you remove things, otherwise you would have realised the other link is dead so you've gone and left the article with no reference instead.

This assumes there actually is a replacement reference for the statement in question, which is not something one can automatically assume when dealing with sources that the community has decided to fully deprecate such as RT for very good reasons (see:

WP:LINKROT as I don't think anyone would consider that reasonable. Amigao (talk

) 02:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)