User talk:Amigao

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Please desist from edit-warring and from reverting edits

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

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

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. MingScribe1368 (talk) 04:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

September 2024

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Sima Nan, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Please don't stealth revert changes like you did with [1]. This page was purged as part of a CFD that @HouseBlaster: just closed. Mason (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advice request

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

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

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

How should I use depreciated sources?

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

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

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

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

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