Jump to content

User talk:Amigao

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Please desist from edit-warring and from reverting edits

[edit]

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]
I'm having the same problem with @Amigao. I will look, but apparently, he is making round-the-clock changes with a particular objective. He has made almost 50 changes to random articles on China in the past 12 hours alone. Either this is a shared account or a bot. DavidRJD (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This account is a highly productive editor and have seen no indication he is a bot or shared account. Please provide evidence in link form before making these accusations, otherwise please strike through your comments. Superb Owl (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going about working with Wiki incorrectly, so I will step back from editing to see how I can better engage with this community. The vast majority of editors in this community are trying to do the right thing; I have just had the same experience as the initiator of this thread. I should have adequately considered the number of issues (state actors, corporate employees trying to advertise, etc.) that WIki deals with daily.
My assertion comes from looking at his usage logs from the user where (for example) on October 25th, he made 11 edits to 11 separate users' talk pages within a 4-minute timeframe. (10/15/24 2:21-2:24). There are many examples where edits are made simultaneously on different pages to different articles. Making substantive additions to multiple articles with matching time stamps looks odd. I can produce other examples. Here is an example where there are 9 edits in 2 minutes.
I will strike the comment does not find this suspicious. DavidRJD (talk) 05:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are all tiny edits that take maybe 10 seconds each so I do not find these suspicious. If they were big edits, then yes, that would be suspicious Superb Owl (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I will be the first to admit that as I've investigated this further, I've gotten even more confused. This is why I'm taking a break from editing until I better understand how things work. I do think many of the edits are rather substantive.
Thousands of edits are made under this account using the IA Bot interface, so my assertion that this account uses bots seems true. However, the bots are mainly utilized not for nefarious purposes but to correct citations, etc. WP:AGF.
I will strike that comment based on your representation. DavidRJD (talk) 03:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How should I use depreciated sources?

[edit]

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]

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

Stop icon

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 05:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disinfo

[edit]

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

EUvsDisinfo typically has the relevant outlets/links to the actual disinfo (or screenshots of them) on the left and a Summary/Response section that explains what and how is being distorted, falsified, etc. - Amigao (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I see that and can you explain to me how exactly is the above link a distortion or falsification? VR (Please ping on reply) 02:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is untrue is the Telegram link/screenshot to the left of the page that distorts the underlying WaPo article. The issue was not with the WaPo article per se. That is what the EUvDisinfo page is explaining. - Amigao (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and what exactly is the issue with the Telegram screenshot? It is clear that Israel's destruction in Gaza is greater than the destruction in Aleppo? VR (Please ping on reply) 17:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EUvsDisinfo was not disputing the contents of the WaPo article, only the distortion of it. That is quite clear from explanation in their "Response" section of the link you provided. - Amigao (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing unsourced information

[edit]

Please refrain from outright deleting unsourced or unrealiably sourced text that otherwise contributes to the quality of an article without discussion. Instead you could find a source to cite or use a template such as [citation needed]. In addition, please engage with the cited sources before taking action, as text that might seem unsourced at first glance may be confirmed by a citation further down in the section. Thank you. Khaverte (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that WP:RS is hard WP:POLICY on Wikipedia. One is always free to restore unsourced text with a WP:RS. - Amigao (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of this. However, I am voicing this request because (a) requesting citations, rather than deleting text, makes the work of other Wikipedians easier, (b) immediate deletion may result in actually sourced text being deleted (as described in the initial message, and as has been the case in the History of opium in China article), and (c) text deletion may result in otherwise valuable and factual information being omitted despite a reliable source being available (but uncited), as not all contributors check the edit history of every page for instances of unsourced text removal that can be restored. See also WP:NOCITE. Khaverte (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would a reader even know that a statement is factual if there is no WP:RS there to back it up? That puts an undue burden on the reader to research unsourced text if they wish to confirm its veracity, which is an unrealistic expectation in most cases. How would they know that it is not WP:OR? Also, please see WP:PROVEIT. - Amigao (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point regarding (c) does not relate to the reader, but rather to future editors and article quality. Unsourced text deletion lowers the likelihood of WP:BESTSOURCES being added to the article when compared to the use of a {{Citation needed}} template, as it effectively hides the need for additional citations in the edit history. A {{Citation needed}} eliminates the burden on the reader you mention while also avoiding the issues of (a) and (b). Once again, please see WP:NOCITE. To illustrate my position: my work on History of opium in China would have been easier if you had used {{Citation needed}} instead, and if I had not been invested enough to monitor the article's history after my initial edits, it would be unlikely that an outside editor would have noticed the multiple instances of removal and provided the needed sources. Khaverte (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can also consider using a sandbox to write drafts if you do not yet have the sources to support the text. It is hard for editors to know when someone makes an edit and intends to add the source later and when they do not. Superb Owl (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have misunderstood the issue. That is not at all the case that is being discussed here. Every one of my edits has been accompanied with citations. Khaverte (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A tag for 'citations needed' is a temporary fix but one that seldom leads to the tagged text getting a WP:RS in practice. There are some good past discussions about this very issue in the talk archives of WP:V and WP:RS that I recommend. - Amigao (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion, on the other hand, almost never (this case being an exceedingly rare exception) leads to the text getting a WP:RS, by virtue of the would-have-been-tagged text simply no longer existing in the article body. Why not choose seldom making the article better over almost never doing so?
You have still not addressed (a) or (b).
Could you please link to those discussions? There are 81 archive pages on WP:V alone and I do not find it reasonable to expect a user to read through all of them in search of a discussion concerning a specific topic. Khaverte (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, thank you for adding WP:BESTSOURCES to History of opium in China. This is a good instance of how this process leads to an all-around stronger article. - Amigao (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amigao&oldid=1258443590"