User talk:Amigao/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Welcome

Hello Amigao, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

• Table of Contents

• Department directory

Need help?

• Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
• Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.
• Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

• Article Wizard — a Wizard to help you create articles
• The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.
• Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

• Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

---

Epeefleche

Amigao, good luck, and have fun. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on George Demos. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

BLP policy on Cliff Stearns

When contentious and contested material is removed on citing BLP concerns it cannot be restored until the material has been reviewed and there is consensus to do so (either on the talk page or at WP:BLPN). As these were unfounded allegations made by an opponent it is WP:UNDUE as it is currently written.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

February 2013

Amigao, you have added a section on the history of the Bahrain uprising to Qorvis. Can you please explain why this is relevant to their entry? It would seem at best a citation or an internal link. I have removed as these internal citations exist in the entry. Thanks in advance for your response. ----harriett888 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harriett888 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kay Granger may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Amigao. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Amigao. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Amigao. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Amigao. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Amigao. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

August 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ming Pao. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You need WP:DUE and WP:Citation for allegation on media . One single source is not enough . Some allegation may worth to add to the main body of the articles if more than a few sources. But it is not suitable to put in infobox which is for some fact that undisputed correct Matthew hk (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

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)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited TikTok, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wired (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

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

Please stop removing sources

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 WP:RSP. -Zanhe (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Attribution in bibliography

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)

Edits to Huawei

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)

A more balanced explanation on what Jiusan Society is

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)

Neutrality

The wordings in wiki need to be neutral and impartial. Please make discussions before you change. 钉钉 (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Warning

You need to make discussion and concensus and follow the neutral point of view policy in Wikipedia. 钉钉 (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

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" . 钉钉 (talk) 05:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Global Times article

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)

I replied. How can I ask a Wikipedia admin to see if Amigao is one of your sockpuppets? Wikipedia:Sock puppetry is against the rules.

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

Removal of Citations on CGTN

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)

Removal of Asian Times source

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)

May 2020

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%Template:Z187 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)

CPC vs CCP

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)

September 2020

Hello, I'm ItsPugle. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Drew Pavlou, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please make sure to update citations when changing claims, that you're using neutral, reliable, and independent sources, and that you're keeping the balance of the article in mind (We're not Pavlou's defence team). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:V problems

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. This had better be a simple overwight, an unintentional conflation of the PRC Foreign Ministry with the CPC, lest you become viewed in the same light as Swmpshield2. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Removal of links on Antireligious campaigns in China

The wiki links for monastic residences at Larung Gar and Yarchen Gar being demolished by Chinese authorities, and to surveillance at Kirti Monastery all in Tibet were removed during your edit. Why? Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@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)

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. 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)

September 2020

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)

Dear Amigao

@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)

Archiving of living links

Hi there. It seems like you've been archiving links that are living. I'm not sure if you're running a bot script on your account or just manually doing it and adding IABot tags for the fun of it, but please do not do this - let's keep archiving links for ones that are actually dead, not two-day-old news articles. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@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)

@PJvanMill: Gotcha! The article was, at the time, subject to quite some controversy and reporting, so the archived versions didn't always match what was being cited (since the live version was edited by journos after being archived by Amigao). Not the end of the world, but just a bit more work to review and to deal with in the midst of some heavy editing. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Teresa Wat Edit Warring

Hi, you seem to be edit warring with User:Wikisilver0000 regarding changes at Teresa Wat. Per WP:EDITWAR, You are required to discuss with the other editor when there is disagreement and reach a compromise or consensus. You may be blocked if you continue to edit war. Jumpytoo Talk 04:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Deprecated source removal

It's great that you help with deprecated sources... as DEPREC says, they are generally unreliable, but can be used for some things. But overall we want them all replaced. Replaced is key here. We don't want removal with nothing in its place. When you remove the source, first find a good replacement and exchange the bad for the good source. If you can't find a good source replacement then either leave it or remove it but place a template that says it needs a source. The worst is to simply remove it and leave nothing as you did with 2020 US Open – Women's Singles. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Deprecated source removal 3

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)

Violation of three revert rule

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))

Unresponsive editing

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 (Fyunck(click)), you should not be performing 50 WP:DEPREC edits in the span of even a few hours, as this was beyond the pale. Pinging @ToBeFree:, it is telling that your first-ever post on your own user talk was made this Monday evening (UTC), despite having edited here since 2009. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

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 ToBeFree posted the above message for absolutely no reason, then? Seems like an 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))

Abuse of deprecated source removal 4

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)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: International Mayor Communication Centre

Hello Amigao. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on International Mayor Communication Centre to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. KillerChihuahua 16:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Telesurv

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

@Number 57: Hello. This assumes there is source replacement for the statement in question, which is not something we can automatically assume when dealing with sources that the community has decided to deprecate. WP:GOODFAITH is important here and that's why a 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)

@CaradhrasAiguo: I'd suggest raising at 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)

Deprecated source removal

Please find a better source before removing a source and leaving nothing in its place. If you can't find any better ones then either leave it or remove it but place a template that says it needs a source. The worst is to simply remove it and leave nothing as you did with Allied Democratic Forces insurgency and 2020 Democratic Republic of the Congo massacres. Wowzers122 (talk) 15:15, 11 October 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)

Issues with Global Times

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:RSP has an overview of the source and links to the discussion around why it was fully deprecated. WP:DEPS also provides guidance on when a fully deprecated source can be used. For example: WP:ABOUTSELF. Amigao (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Removing short descriptions

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)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Turkish diaspora

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

The entry on Sputnik at WP:RSP has an overview of the source and links to the discussion around why it was fully deprecated. WP:DEPS also provides guidance on when a fully deprecated source can be used, for example: WP:ABOUTSELF. Amigao (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Deprecated sources

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

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

People's Daily

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

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

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

As to your second, poorly explained wording attempt, you need WP:MEDRS to demonstrate definitively that there is little to no possibility of an importation, not Palmer's partisan assessment. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS applies to medical claims, not claims regarding simply the text that a newspaper published. Also, no claim of "Western" origin was made in the statement, only that it was "imported." Big difference. Amigao (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Propaganda push. Beijing is doubling down on its big lie of 2020: the claim that the new coronavirus didn’t originate in China but was instead imported from the West

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

Not quite. This is a statement regarding a newspaper making a claim about the origins of the virus. There's a difference. Regarding the claim itself, it just happens to be a well-documented piece of misinformation, which is why it is on misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic in the first place. Amigao (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

They are about a particular conspiracy theory that blames the U.S. for the origin of the virus, to be precise here. Also, might be worth reviewing WP:NPA. Amigao (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Reliable sources

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

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Xinhua_News_Agency

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

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

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

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

December 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Anthony Hudson (football manager), did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You seem to have a real issue with your editing. You're so keen to just remove stuff that you are willing to edit war? You've been told before that while you can remove links, it's best to provide a new source and tag old links.

Also surely you know WP:BRD, so you edited, I reverted, why are you doing it again? I think your editing needs to be looked at by admins NZFC^(talk)(cont) 13:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Fully deprecated sources removed are replaced with a tag when appropriate. In this case, there is another source to back up the statement being made. The entry on RT at WP:RSP has an overview of the source and links to the discussion around why it was fully deprecated. WP:DEPS also provides guidance on when a fully deprecated source can be used, for example: WP:ABOUTSELF. In this particular case, WP:ABOUTSELF is not applicable. Amigao (talk) 13:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

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

This assumes there actually is a replacement reference for the statement in question, which is not something one can automatically assume when dealing with sources that the community has decided to fully deprecate such as RT for very good reasons (see: WP:RSP). That's why a tag is left if it's the sole source being used out of good faith and an abundance of caution. In the particular case of Anthony Hudson, the deprecated source was never the sole source being used in the statement in question and there was another perfectly good link that was left in place. Apparently, it was a dead link that just needed to be repaired. I'm certainly not checking every article I edit for WP:LINKROT as I don't think anyone would consider that reasonable. Amigao (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Your editing doesn't help just removing stuff if it leaves articles worse off. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 13:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 13:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Warning

While your editing is within the letter of WP:Deprecated, it gives the appearance of not paying attention and editors are concerned about the bot-like rate at which you are removing depreciated sources. Please stop these removals and discuss these editors' concerns before continuing and if and when you resume please do so at a more careful pace. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. While I do focused editing, I make an effort to assess the wording of the statement in which a fully deprecated source is used to ensure that is not one of the very few acceptable uses of it (such as WP:ABOUTSELF). In cases where a fully deprecated source is the sole citation being used for a statement, it is replaced with a {{citation needed}} tag, which assumes good faith about the statement and it also permits others the opportunity to research and assess the validity of that statement. When dealing with a fully deprecated source like RT (one with a well-documented history of outright fabrications and disinformation - see:WP:RSP), perhaps that is overly generous at times but I feel it strikes the right balance in assuming good faith. Amigao (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. The problem with this is that you are removing the link and placing a {{citation needed}} tag - which is your editing producing additional work for other editors. It's much better if in removing the depreciated source, you also add a replacement reference instead of a CN tag. Also there are concerns about the rapid pace of these removals - a look at your contributions page shows a rate of removals that is almost bot-like, which raises concerns that the removals are in fact being checked as appropriate.

I would suggest that, when you resume editing, you engage the editors who have concerns about these removals (in the AN/I thread or elsewhere as appropriate) before resuming these removals, and come to a consensus on what balance should be struck between outright removal, replacement, and remembering that there is no deadline for removal. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank for discussing this. I certainly engage in highly focused editing (often on a particular source that the community decided to fully deprecate) and I'm happy to slow it down. However, it is worth noting that when dealing with a fully deprecated source with a history of outright fabrications, unfortunately one cannot assume that there are simply "replacement" references that can be slotted in. That's why a good-faith approach involves a tag when the fully deprecated source is the sole source in question. That approach affords others the opportunity to continue to assess the underlying statement in question, which may then require significant revision or sometimes removal. Also, for transparency, the issue has been raised and discussed in WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_317#Mass_removal_of_content_on_China-related_articles previously and the tag was raised as an acceptable replacement for a fully deprecated source. Amigao (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Also some relevant discussion here as well Wikipedia_talk:Deprecated_sources#Proposed_clarification_of_deprecated_sources_guidelines on the same underlying issue. Amigao (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of investigations into Donald Trump and Russia (July–December 2017), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for bot-like removal of references without discussion or engagement following a warning that discussion of disputed edits is not optional.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Amigao (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would greatly appreciate an extra set of eyes on this block as I believe the issue at play is complicated. I certainly admit to engaging in highly focused editing without bots/scripts to replace deprecated sources with a {{citation needed}} tag or removing them when there are other sources already cited. Is this approach against policy? I do my best to analyze the wording of the statement in which the deprecated source in question is used so that it does not fall within an acceptable use of it such as WP:ABOUTSELF. I have felt that when dealing with deprecated sources with a well-documented history of outright disinformation and fabrications such as RT, WP:NOW is of the utmost importance. Additionally, deprecated sources often do not have a simple "replacement" and the {{citation needed}} tag affords others the chance to analyze the statement in question as there may then be heavy revisions or removal required. Also, for this particular issue, I thought I had engaged with the editor in question on my talk page in good faith and saw that the fully deprecated source (RT in this case on the article for Anthony Hudson) was ultimately removed by them. I moved on because I assumed good intentions and that, at most, there might have been a misunderstanding on the nature of the WP:DEPS policy. That has happened before and it never caused me a block. It would be helpful to have some additional clarification here so as to educate myself on how to move forward in the most policy-compliant manner. Thanks.

Decline reason:

Your block appears to have expired. SQL^{Query me!} 23:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I endorse this block (but as I am one of the multiple editors who asked you to stop previously, and also called for you to be blocked at ANI, I am probably too involved to respond to the unblock request). You are making several removals a minute – clearly not enough time to properly review them, so I can't see how the 'I do my best to analyze the wording of the statement' claim is true. Also, in many cases a replacement source can be easily found, but you're making no effort to do so. You've been asked by multiple editors to stop and ignored them all. You're also likely to be blocked again if you restart the same behaviour, so perhaps actually take on board the comments this time. Number 57 14:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I believed the issue had been discussed at length by many, including yourself, here (Wikipedia_talk:Deprecated_sources#Proposed_clarification_of_deprecated_sources_guidelines most recently and was more complex than simply "replacing" a fully deprecated source with a reliable one. Unfortunately, with a deprecated source with a well-documented track record of disinformation, it is seldom an straightforward swapping out of sources. Replacing a fully deprecated source with a tag seemed like a path forward. I also read WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN and thought that my actions entailed that the burden and onus was not on those removing a deprecated source, but rather on those seeking to maintain its inclusion. I could be wrong on my reading on WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN, and would appreciate clarification on this general matter. Amigao (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Also worth mentioning that I have received more thank you notices for removing fully deprecated sources than complaints, so I took this issue to be more of a misunderstanding of policy. Amigao (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Obscuring the real source of a disputed claim is definitely not a good service to the reliability of the English Wikipedia. Other edits of yours are borderline fabrication of sources. Please desist. Nemo 21:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I just looked at one random edit and I don't think that a claim about journalistic practices of a news source is "a medical claim". Nemo 09:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

It's also ridiculous to suggest that a "budgetary statistic" would be contentious, when it's a figure prominently contained in an official parliamentary report. The figure was surely reported in many news sources, and indeed the next edit easily found one. Indeed, such a figure could have been included even just with reference to the primary source, without being original research, as the relevance of said report was already established by other references in the same paragraph. Nemo 09:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Was it intentional to remove the only secondary source supporting a claim about a primary source (the linked video)? Hardly seems an improvement. Nemo 10:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

See also a few other issues, mostly about diplomatic matters. Here, often the diplomatic statements are themselves the story. RT is reckless in some fields but it wouldn't fabricate a translation of a RIA Novosti press release, and RIA Novosti wouldn't invent that Lavrov said something in public. Often we'd be able to quote a Reuters or AP translation or quotation of the same statement, but that's just one more layer. What matters is that we have a second source if we state something actually happened on the field, as opposed to merely saying Russia or RT said something. Nemo 10:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

None of these examples is an acceptable uses of a fully deprecated source. In particular, they fail #2 and #3 of WP:ABOUTSELF. - Amigao (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Amigao, I see you doing lots of good work, but this isn't it. Nemo bis needs to drop a half dozen comments before you respond? You never responded at the ANI thread, where editors think you have not addressed their concerns and persist in disruptive behavior. User:Number 57 (an admin) and User:Geogene are both unhappy; the latter wants you topic-banned from making these very edits. User:The Bushranger, I am really thinking a terrible thing here: a longer block per ENGAGE. It is the last thing that I want.

Amigao, this is a collaborative project. You mentioned something about a misunderstanding of policy in your unblock request, but that is completely inappropriate here: this isn't about some policy about sources or whatever, it is about a bigger thing--the spirit of the project. Please respond, and respond more timely, and respond even when not under threat of sanctions. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I responded as promptly as I can on my talk page and I provided a clear policy-based response. It should also be mentioned that WP:ONUS very much applies here to the removal of fully deprecated sources. The better forum for this discussion is WP:RSN. - Amigao (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

It looks sadly likely. Amigao, and engage with editors before continuing your reference removals, please. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The correct forum for this discussion regarding removal and/or replacement of fully deprecated sources is WP:RSN. This is really more of a policy discussion at this stage. - Amigao (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but no, not all. I'm convinced that you're trying to apply the policy in good faith, but all my comments are about the specific way you chose for doing so: in all the examples above, you could have chosen at least half a dozen different ways (of which one, of course, is outright removal of the offending paragraphs). I suspect you perceive we're in a rush against time to remove all the deprecated sources, and given you can put only so much time in this effort you think it's acceptable to choose whichever method is faster way; but I'm not at all convinced this is true. Nemo 09:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." This is consistent with my editing concerning unreliable (deprecated) sources. Also, when dealing with a source such as RT that the community decided to deprecate because it is generally unreliable and well-known for disinformation, WP:NOW is a useful essay. - Amigao (talk) 10:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This sounds like WP:PLAYPOLICY. Yes, Burden and Onus exist, but I think it's debatable whether they are intended to cover the drive-by, mass challenging of sources across hundreds of articles, at a rate of up to 4 articles per minute. I read the thread you linked to at [5], and all I got from it is that 1) there's no consensus in favor of mass, bot-like removal of deprecated sources, although 2) some Wikipedians do appear to be in favor of it, while 3) other Wikipedians also seem to be alarmed by it, and those complaints appear to be directed at you specifically. It looks like the Wikipedia:Deprecated sources project page says, "Deprecation is not a blanket retroactive "ban" on using the source in absolutely every situation, contrary to what has been reported in media headlines." Geogene (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Deprecation is clearly not a blanket ban as WP:RS states regarding certain permissible WP:ABOUTSELF usages of deprecated sources. Also, this is not WP:PLAYPOLICY at all. WP:BURDEN, WP:ONUS, and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Deprecated_sources are absolutely core to Wikipedia, and my edits are consistent with them. Also worth mentioning that oftentimes unreliable (deprecated) sources like RT are used as WP:LINKSPAM in articles alongside reliable sources. In those cases, the deprecated source should also be removed per WP:FALSEBALANCE. - Amigao (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, for that matter, WP:NOTBURO and WP:IAR are also core to Wikipedia, and quite a few editors think that the way you're going about removing deprecs is a net negative. Geogene (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is important but WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does make a core policy and guideline like WP:V and WP:RS stop applying. Part of the concern is that many might not fully appreciate how damaging deprecated sources of misinformation/disinformation (like RT) can be. That's why WP:NOW is such a helpful essay because it deals directly with urgency of removing misinformation. - Amigao (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

But for the most part, you're not removing disinformation. You're removing routine journalistic coverage. The only suspect content I've seen you touch was in one of the Nemo bis diffs, in which RT claimed that Italian police had injured 80 protesters, while reliable sources said it was one person that had been injured. You deleted the RT source but left the misinformation in the article! The rest of the stuff you're un-sourcing includes things that have nothing to do with the Kremlin's interests, things like French celebrities dying in helicopter crashes in Argentina, for example. Putin wouldn't care about stuff like that, so I don't understand why you expect to waste other editors' time finding new sources that say the same thing. If it's important enough for you to delete the deprecated source, then it should be important enough for you to supply a replacement source yourself. Geogene (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The community took a different view when they deprecated RT as it cannot be used for routine journalistic coverage. Per WP:RS, "A deprecated source should not be used to support factual claims. While there are exceptions for discussion of the source's own view on something, these are rarely appropriate outside articles on the source itself. In general articles, commentary on a deprecated source's opinion should be drawn from independent secondary sources. Including a claim or statement by a deprecated source that is not covered by reliable sources risks giving undue weight to a fringe view." WP:RS is very clear on this. For reference, this is the May 2020 RfC that deprecated RT: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_295#RfC:_RT_(Russia_Today). - Amigao (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, most of the sources you're deleting aren't being used to reference fringe viewpoints, but routine journalistic coverage. And, again, you have not shown that consensus exists to retroactively remove all deprecated sources. Further, the fact that you don't think it's important to provide new sourcing implies that you don't actually believe that the content you're un-sourcing is misinformation. Geogene (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The community disagreed that RT is valid for routine journalistic coverage, as you describe it, as you can clearly see in WP:RSP and the RfC linked above. The edit history for Oleksandr Yefremov shows an example of RT being used to peddle disinformation. Also, any WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here never overrides policy and guidelines covering deprecated sources (WP:V and WP:RS). An unreliable deprecated source remains so unless there is an RfC to change that. Also, no one is advocating about removing all unreliable deprecated sources because there are acceptable uses in WP:ABOUTSELF. The articles on Michael Flynn or Slavoj Žižek are examples of RT being used in a manner consistent with WP:ABOUTSELF. The issue is that uses of unreliable deprecated sources that violate WP:RS, which is the vast majority of them, can and should be removed. - Amigao (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus, local or otherwise, that all deprecated sources must be retroactively removed, and you're not engaging with my concerns. I'm removing this talk page from my watchlist, as this seems to be a waste of time. My supply of good faith is also running short -- I agree with deprecating RT, but your reckless implementation of it could easily be mistaken for malicious compliance. Geogene (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, no one is saying that all unreliable deprecated sources must be removed because there are clearly some limited acceptable uses of them in WP:ABOUTSELF. However, the vast majority of uses of unreliable deprecated sources fail WP:V and WP:RS. - Amigao (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert

The edits you wisely reverted are a replica of edits deleted recently at 2008 Tibetan unrest by user AdoTang. Can we flag the IP address ? I had already pinged the editor on the talk, but haven't received a response. Then, a reinsertion of edits... Thanks again. Pasdecomplot (talk) 08:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

There are issues again there. If you're interested. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I think there should be vote on the Talkpage before any drastic move on the contain China article

What do you think? 27.104.203.24 (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. WP:ELMIN is a well-established guideline and cleaning up an overgrown External links section so that it conforms to it is not necessarily drastic. All too often the External links section is an ignored dumping ground for opinion pieces and whatnot. - Amigao (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Removing easily replaceable refs again

It took me 10 seconds to find a replacement for the reference you deleted from the 2015 Transnistrian parliamentary election article. Do we need to go back to ANI again? Number 57 20:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Appreciation post for your contribution on Want Want AlphonseOop (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Attempt to reintroduce edits by a sock

Your attempt to reintroduce material under false pretenses that were first made by a sock on First island chain is disappointing to say the least, considering that you are not a new editor. The user Albertaont was within their means to remove them. Stick to WP:NPOV and perhaps not actually engage in WP:BE no matter how tempting it may be considering your interests had aligned with them. 209.216.92.203 (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You have now removed other well-sourced improvements to the page. Please see "Deleting articles or article edits" under WP:SOCKSTRIKE and do follow it. - Amigao (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, be aware that your last sentence could be interpreted as coming very close to casting WP:ASPERSIONS. - Amigao (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Amigao, for future reference this IP is themselves a sockpuppet. There's a few sock farms that seem to go after each other in the Southeast Asia area, but for this one in particular see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Ineedtostopforgetting. CMD (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.-- Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Please review WP:BRD-NOT and understand that it is disruptive behavior. - Amigao (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Africa-China relations

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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. PailSimon (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

This user is apparently banned now. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Jonny Gould

Hi there, I can see why the Sputnik News link and content you removed from this article is not usually recommended, I understood that when I added it, having reviewed all the guidance, and made a comment in the edit description. However, in this case the source provides an audio interview with Gould himself where all the quotes are directly drawn from, so there is no 'fake news'. I would appreciate that you read this guidance: WP:Deprecated sources, specifically the Acceptable use of deprecated sources section which states: "Deprecated sources can normally be cited as a primary source when the source itself is the subject of discussion, such as to describe its own viewpoint.". It was in this context that I added content here which I feel is a primary and fair representation of the subject of the BLP and it is my view that your deletion should be reverted.

Mountaincirque^talk 08:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Please use common sense here regarding WP:Deprecated sources here, you can open the link and listen to the full 27-minute interview with the subject, these are primary quotes from the BLP subject and are obviously not disinformation if reviewed properly. I have just looked at your talk archive and can see you have received multiple warnings and blocks for making edits like this in the past, as well as edit warring, this concerns me quite frankly as this is not something I want to be wasting my time with, so I will not immediately revert your removal as per WP:BOLD, but wait a day or two for your reply. If you do not respond then I will add the content back and tweak it slightly to represent the source of the information, which might allay your blanket fear of deprecated sources. Mountaincirque^talk 09:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

If you wish to use a fully deprecated source on a BLP, I would recommend you take it to WP:BLPN first. - Amigao (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, I did as you suggested and followed the admin's guidance. All the best Mountaincirque^talk 16:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Undo other users' edits without giving any reason?

Amigao, please respect other editors' contribution. Wikipedia page is not your own property and it is very impolite of you to delete my work without any reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YushanLi 33 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Amigao, you just undid my edits on "Center for China and Globalization" without giving any proper reason. I don't think it follows wiki etiquette to only keep the citation that you found and deny others' although they follow wiki rules too. Please show some respect to other users' contribution and stop this wiki war, which it seems you practiced frequently.

Amigao, I have been very patient with your rude and disrespectful behavior, deleting my contribution with proper citation following Wiki rules WITHOUT ANY SUFFICIENT REASONS and ignoring my inquiry about your contribution. You stand on no ground to judge if my or anyone else' contribution is constructive. STOP this wiki war as you have done and get warned of many times before!

May 2021

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 07:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Sunderland Renaissance, please review WP:BRD-NOT and understand that your reverts are not supported by policy (WP:COMMONNAME is a WP:POLICY) and that this counts as disruptive behavior. If you don't agree with a particular policy, please feel free to begin an RfC on that policy's talk page. - Amigao (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

- You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Template:Z189 --Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Essentially your rule is this, you are allowed to revert anyone and any change anything you like, demanding it be "took to the talk page" but you otherwise change things at will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunderland Renaissance (talk • contribs) 03:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Your incomplete method about "unreliable" sources

Hello, I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, as all other editors. But, what you are doing is unfair, by judging the reliability of sources and removing them on your own. Even if a source is deemed by Wikipedia itself as unreliable, you are of course welcomed to remove them, but, please finish your job with bringing a reliable source, then. What you do is nothing but an unfinished business, as well as looking down to other editors' efforts. Regards. Isik (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC).

Edit warring

Hi - I just blocked that account for edit warring, but looking at the history of the pages they were active on, I see that you were also way past WP:3RR, and I'm leaning towards thinking that I should block your account too in order to avoid an accusation of taking sides. I can't see any reason why WP:3RRNO would apply - the edits had none of the hallmarks of vandalism as far as I can see, they just thought we should use a different version of the name of the party in those articles. Can you shed any light on why you thought they were vandalism? Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 16:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Unfortunately, there has been a lot of recent off-wiki brigading relating to CCP-related articles and much of it centers on coordinated, mass violations of WP:COMMONNAME following several RfCs on the talk page of Chinese Communist Party. Please see: [6] for additional context. - Amigao (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Amigao, OK, it sounds like you're appealing to WP:3RRNO criterion 8 there. If there's an established talk page consensus on which variant of the name to use in the form of an RfC, you'd be OK to go past 3RR, but in that case you should link to the discussion in your edit summary. If there's evidence of disruption fuelled by off-wiki canvassing, I'd suggest a report to RfPP for affected articles. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 16:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

That's helpful guidance. Thanks. - Amigao (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

Dear Amigao,

I am launching a complaint about you to administrators in due frustration over your frequent aggressive reverting, policing and blatant POV editing in China related content wherein you frequently dictate the flow of changes in these articles and then frame me as a vandal or edit warrior even when I try to balance them out- Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit Warring by Amigao on China related topics. Thank you. Deb (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Mass removal of RT sources + somewhat abrupt treatment of editors

Hi Amigao,

I couldn't help notice that you have continued to remove RT references even in situations that are not deprecated per RS/N or RS/P. Indeed, this edit removes the RT sources, but curiously, leaves in the Lenta.ru citation. Whilst I appreciate that RT is not the highest quality source, there is not, as far as I can tell, any consensus to blanket remove it as a source...

I also noticed that you have recently been doing reverts like this, where your rationale is somewhat abrupt, and does not appear to be linkspam per se, as much as it is a likely newbie editor failing to appreciate MOS. It may be better to in the future, leave a note on newbie user's talkpage explaining what if anything, they have messed up, instead of simply leaving terse notes in your revert summary.

Best, BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 05:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

mea culpa I didn't notice that you had submitted one of the users to SPI. I must eat my words! BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 05:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, BrxBrx. Unfortunately, that article has been the target of WP:SPA socks for some time. Also, per WP:RSP, Lenta.ru is acceptable *only* when published prior to 12 March 2014, which is true in the case of MV Arctic Sea. - Amigao (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Alla Taran article

Hi Amigao, I have added more references to the article "Alla Taran" and also more information, anyway this woman violinist passed away in 2017, so the template doesn´t correspond. If you want you can see the new editions and remove the template. Thank you very much.--Miskito89 (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Community Sanctions Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Apple Daily

Apple Daily Hong Kong has been shut down, and all artice links are broken, which we currently have 318 of per hk.appledaily.com  . Given that Apple Daily was a high traffic website all 318 linked articles have probably been archived at the Wayback Machine and elsewhere. Would it be possible for you to provide archived links for them? Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest using the IABot on those 318 articles. - Amigao (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)