User talk:Amigao: Difference between revisions

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)[reply]

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:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Jasonagastrich, please consider the notice about WP:NPA on your user talk page. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Unresponsive editing

Hi Amigao,

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

^^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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Killer Chihuahua 16:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 315: / Line 315: @@
 Please do not abuse the [[Wikipedia:Deprecated sources#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources|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, [[User:Mickie-Mickie|Mickie-Mickie]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:CSD|speedy deletion]] tag that you placed on [[:International Mayor Communication Centre]] to a [[WP:PROD|proposed deletion]] tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you.  [[User:KillerChihuahua|Killer]][[User talk:KillerChihuahua|<span style="color: #415651;">Chihuahua</span>]] 16:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)