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]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon 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]

Stop icon with clock
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!

[edit]
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

[edit]

Information icon 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

[edit]

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?

[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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amigao&oldid=1255703028"