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.

SPI reports

Please do not add new suspected socks to a closed SPI reports. If you think you've found new socks, please open a new report with supporting evidence. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

United States sanctions

Hey Amigao, I saw you move the Chinese government sanctions page. Do you think the United States sanctions page should be moved to the United States government sanctions as well? It may be better for consistency. Hope to get your thoughts! The Account 2 (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to lean in that direction as well. As I'm sure you are aware, one of the particular issues here is that "Chinese" by itself can be vague and sometimes (often?) confused for "ethnic Chinese" rather than the PRC government. - Amigao (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm yeah I see your point. I originally titled the article as Chinese sanctions for it to be consistent with the United States sanctions page, but the current article title feels more satisfactory in my opinion as well. The Account 2 (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I went WP:BOLD and moved the US sanctions page as well. Hopefully didn't complicate your work with all those new redirect links. 😂 The Account 2 (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Talk:Huawei: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Qrstw talk contribs 18:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Amigao,

I see that you have reverted the content about Omnihuman in Bytedance stating that reference is FORBESCON. Is it ok if I change it with some other reputable site link. Emly Jones (talk) 08:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure and WP:RSP is a good reference for reliable sourcing. - Amigao (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amigao

Why are my articles about election interference being removed? 186.151.158.182 (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electorals interferences

Do you have another place where we can discuss this, perhaps in a friendly way, and in real time? Alexgonzalezvasquez (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate place to discuss the content of any page is on talk of said page. - Amigao (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have not refuted me. Alexgonzalezvasquez (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ETAN

With regard to this edit: would you care to explain to me what about Reuters makes it a deprecated source? Thank you. 199.88.91.66 (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that NewsBlaze (see: WP:RSP) was the main source there? Amigao (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amigao

I don't mean to engage in edit war and violate the three-revert rule, I just edit so that everyone can understand. Besides, the information I have, came from the true article. Please understand me, Amigao. 14.177.68.68 (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lie: you did mean to engage in edit warring, because you went and continued doing it right after posting this. Remsense ‥ 论 07:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to contribute isn't called edit war. If you don't want me to contribute, then alright, I'll stop. 14.177.68.68 (talk) 08:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you re-read what Amigao initially posted. It explains what edit warring is and why people allow themselves sometimes to do it anyway. As is explicitly stressed, even if you are right, that is not an excuse to edit war. Remsense ‥ 论 08:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have read about edit war and WP:ONUS, but why you and Amigao has to revert? Did the informations I have, came from true article, not suitable? 14.177.68.68 (talk) 11:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New user adding social media fan war outcome Article Bai Jingting

Hi admin, I'm not sure how reliable. User :Blueushsmile opened an account on 19 Feb 2025, added controversy statement in Bai Jingting. Fans fighting over bias screen presence is considered as controversy. Other brand related statements is also over exaggerated. Pls consider to have look into it SakuraSmart (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]