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.

Greetings of the season

~ ~ ~ Greetings of the season ~ ~ ~

Hello Amigao: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Spread the love; use {{subst:User:Dustfreeworld/Xmas3}} to send this message.
--Dustfreeworld (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Amigao!

Happy New Year!

Amigao,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
The Account 2 (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chengdu J-36, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Diplomat.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated removals of unreliably-sourced information

Please refrain from outright deleting unreliably-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. Dant3gramsci (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Instead you could find a source to cite or use a template such as [citation needed]
No, it's the editor insisting on the content is the one who should find the reliable source.

Also, why you claim the removals are "repeated"? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to also review WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS. - Amigao (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restore My Profile

Hello Amigao, I'm very confused as to why my profile was deleted, and specifically regarding the 'sustained notability' issue.

Note... aside from being a globally respected dancer and entertainer for nearly 40 years, as well as a globally acknowledged and respected life coach, I've also appeared in many major media outlets including The New York Times, The Huffington Post, Access Hollywood, The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune and TV Guide, been nominated for a GLADD award, as well as me getting a special acknowledgment from the former mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel with "Feb 5, 2017 to be Carlton Wilborn Day In Chicago in recognition of his extraordinary life and enduring efforts that impact culture inform community and inspire change", to name a few.

I believe the issue showed up because I went in last month to update some things, and maybe I did it incorrectly. For sure it was not my intention to go against the rules of Wikipedia. My Sincere Apology!

Please know that everything I had on my profile was 100% legit!

Any support you can generate to expedite the process of reinstating my profile would be greatly appreciated!

Thank You in advance! Carlton Carltonrising (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would recommend that you start with WP:COIEDIT. - Amigao (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S with CCs

Hey! I don't know what happened, FYI I didn't revert your changes intentionally, must have misclicked it when I was reviewing some changelogs. Sorry about that, and Happy New Year! Top5a (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: removing my contribution to the BBC article

You have removed information regarding a study about the right-wing bias of the BBC. The study is real, and while the cited source (thecradle.co) is deprecated, it took me 5 seconds (a single google search) to find a WP:RS talking about the study.^[1]^[2] Please remember WP:AGF. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is always best to stick with WP:RS and WP:RSPSOURCES is a good place to start for a reference list. Additionally, CiteUnseen and the Unreliable/Predatory Source Detector are two great tools for that. I would also recommend steering clear of op-ed pieces for anything written in WP:WIKIVOICE. Otherwise, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV with WP:INTEXT is necessary. - Amigao (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But I did give a quote. I can also cite the study itself, but that is a primary source.

What is in dispute here? The existence of the study or what the study says? TurboSuperA+ (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not reliable, too. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find them on the deprecated list. What makes them unreliable? It is also a claim from a study, what is in dispute here? TurboSuperA+ (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's on those adding the content to prove the reliability. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the Wikipedia policy that says so? As far as I can tell, if the source isn't deprecated and it is a news website it is considered WP:RS. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, if the source isn't deprecated and it is a news website it is considered WP:RS
Can you point the Wikipedia policy saying so?

See WP:RS and WP:BURDEN. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to discuss the reliability of a particular source is WP:RSN. Otherwise, this looks like a discussion better made on Talk:BBC. - Amigao (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removing references, leaving behind CN

Hi there. Concerning your edit on 2022 South Ossetian presidential election (and likely others): fine if you want to remove references from sources that are declared "not reliable". But please spend a few minutes on trying to find alternate sources that cover the text, rather than just deleting text + source or leaving a CN tag behind. It took me only a simple search query to find proper sources (such as the title of the original articles). And just the first page of Google results. Most work was to put the stuff back in. I spend not more than 15 minutes on the threeinks. Please be a bit more considerate. The fact that EA daily is considered Moscow propaganda with fake news doesn't make everything fake. These facts have been reported in reliable Russian independent sources such as Caucasian Knot and Ekho Kavkaza, the Caucasus branch of Radio Free Europe. And also in Georgian media. I consider these acts as nothing less than vandalism, especially if there has been no attempt to find a proper replacement. Labrang (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me stand in defence as removing links to propaganda sites and leaving "citation needed" tag is perfectly fine and is an invitation for other editors to find a corresponding source of good quality, just as you did, good job both! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just say that if it is not hard to find, why not use a few minutes? This was just open goal. Sorry, but I can't stand this kind of laziness. If you want quality deliver quality.Labrang (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also recommend reviewing WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS. - Amigao (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean if anything Amigao is being nice here by leaving the badly-referenced material up at all. Generally if I'm doing a source review and either a statement fails verification or a ref turns out to be obviously non-reliable I'd just delete the statement as uncited too. Simonm223 (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a call to use a few minutes of precious time to find an appropriate replacement. Others also have precious time. Especially given this was so obviously easy. Labrang (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But I noticed my call is actually quite futile. Labrang (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits and concerns are appreciated! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:E2568

Hello there,

I've noticed that you had problems with the user User:E2568 (renamed from User:EditQ) in May 2023 because he was removing information from University of International Relations page.

He has been blocked back then. He got unblocked eventually and I think he still keeps removing information. Specifically in Beijing page. I have added my own photo showing Beijing during heavy smog and E2568 removed it with some bogus reason of "Photo taken 8 years ago" without providing any updated photo. He did something similar to other photos in the article about Beijing and to other articles.

All this behavior looks very suspicious. Any idea how we can deal with this?

Thank you. Margarita byca (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And before his username was User:螺钉!

And he was blocked before back in March 2018

This user is very shady. Margarita byca (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	勤懇性之倉星	(The Barnstar of Diligence)
	For one thing, you have consistently made it clear that my own investment in improving China-related articles will not be chipped away at or washed away, even by actors who might intend to do so. I hope I can be as helpful to you in future endeavors—if you wanted to work on an article like Literacy in China together, that would be a great experience I think. Remsense ‥ 论 03:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.thenational.scot/news/24037746.study-shows-bbc-bias-reporting-palestinian-israeli-deaths/

[2] ttps://www.asianimage.co.uk/columnists/24811903.investigated-bbc-reports-gaza-found/

[1]

[2]