This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
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:
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)
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'sPonyobons mots 16:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
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.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
Please stop your disruptive editing.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Jasonagastrich (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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% Matthew hk (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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. --benlisquareT•C•E 23:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
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))
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)
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)
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))
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)
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. KillerChihuahua 16:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Could you make an effort to find a replacement source when you delete Telesurv references rather than just tagging it with [citation needed]? Thanks, Number 57 18:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
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)
I am not sure why you keep removing one of my citations on Tim Naish page. It is a legitimate reference. I would appreciate it is you go to my talk page and explain your thinking. Thanks Realitylink (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi there I am uncertain about why Global Times is not an acceptable reference point. I can see from their Wikipedia page that they are a voice for the Communist Party, but the citation in the article for Tim Naish is somewhat perplexing as it does not in any way indicate bias or propaganda. Naish is a respected scientist in New Zealand and unless the information was taken without his permission, I see no reason to judge his call to allow Global Times to publish it. Surely even on sites like this, we can have the discretion to read any citation carefully before posting - as I did in this case - and make a call ourselves? I am really interested in the process here. Editors need to have lots of discussions and I agree in principle with the policy. Greg Realitylink (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that.Realitylink (talk) 07:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Amigao. I noticed that you removed the short descriptions from two articles (Axios (website) and Global Times) but you didn't provide an explanation. I'm curious why you did that. Thanks – Anne drew 23:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Amigao, I've previously seen the Sputnik new agency used as a source in many wiki articles, so I wanted to understand the reasoning behind your removal of this source in the Turkish diaspora article. Could you please let me know what makes it inappropriate here but ok someplace else? I wanted to make sure I'm following all wiki rules. Thanks in advance. Sseevv (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Amigao, thanks for your work with deprecated sources. Can you please review these edits ([2], [3], [4])? I think these uses of Sputnik might fall under acceptable use guidelines. The concern with Sputnik has been that they are biased and publish Russian propaganda, which is hardly the case in the examples I provided which are all very uncontroversial. For uncontroversial cases, I believe we should replace Sputnik references with other ones rather than removing them.Alaexis¿question? 10:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
You need to verify that the People's Daily post actually claims what Palmer claims, and not blindly trust Foreign Policy or Palmer to accurately represent their quotings. Here is the actual verbiage from the post:
#COVID19 did not start in central China’s Wuhan but may come through imported frozen food and packaging: experts... According to an earlier Italian study, antibodies specific to Sars-CoV-2, the official name of the coronavirus, were found in blood samples collected in a lung cancer screening trial between September 2019 and March this year.
It is a stretch to interpret this as a claim of a Western origin of SARS-nCoV-2 in the voice of PD, only that PD is claiming that it did not originate in Wuhan.
As to your second, poorly explained wording attempt, you need WP:MEDRS to demonstrate definitively that there is little to no possibility of an importation, not Palmer's partisan assessment. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Propaganda push. Beijing is doubling down on its big lie of 2020: the claim that the new coronavirus didn’t originate in China but was instead imported from the West
well-documented piece of misinformationNo it is not, the misinformation mentioned in that section before your edits today is relating to: 1) U.S. army or government bio-engineering; 2) mis-representation of Remuzzi's reporting. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Amigao: I really appreciate your valuable contributions re Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I believe the following discussion is relevant to your work. It would be great if you could take a look and provide your insight. Thanks.
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Xinhua_News_Agency
Normchou (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Anthony Hudson (football manager), did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You seem to have a real issue with your editing. You're so keen to just remove stuff that you are willing to edit war? You've been told before that while you can remove links, it's best to provide a new source and tag old links.
Also surely you know WP:BRD, so you edited, I reverted, why are you doing it again? I think your editing needs to be looked at by admins NZFC(talk)(cont) 13:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Your editing doesn't help just removing stuff if it leaves articles worse off. NZFC(talk)(cont) 13:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NZFC(talk)(cont) 13:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
While your editing is within the letter of WP:Deprecated, it gives the appearance of not paying attention and editors are concerned about the bot-like rate at which you are removing depreciated sources. Please stop these removals and discuss these editors' concerns before continuing and if and when you resume please do so at a more careful pace. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of investigations into Donald Trump and Russia (July–December 2017), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
. The Bushranger One ping only 22:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Amigao (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I would greatly appreciate an extra set of eyes on this block as I believe the issue at play is complicated. I certainly admit to engaging in highly focused editing without bots/scripts to replace deprecated sources with a ((citation needed)) tag or removing them when there are other sources already cited. Is this approach against policy? I do my best to analyze the wording of the statement in which the deprecated source in question is used so that it does not fall within an acceptable use of it such as WP:ABOUTSELF. I have felt that when dealing with deprecated sources with a well-documented history of outright disinformation and fabrications such as RT, WP:NOW is of the utmost importance. Additionally, deprecated sources often do not have a simple "replacement" and the ((citation needed)) tag affords others the chance to analyze the statement in question as there may then be heavy revisions or removal required. Also, for this particular issue, I thought I had engaged with the editor in question on my talk page in good faith and saw that the fully deprecated source (RT in this case on the article for Anthony Hudson) was ultimately removed by them. I moved on because I assumed good intentions and that, at most, there might have been a misunderstanding on the nature of the WP:DEPS policy. That has happened before and it never caused me a block. It would be helpful to have some additional clarification here so as to educate myself on how to move forward in the most policy-compliant manner. Thanks.
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Obscuring the real source of a disputed claim is definitely not a good service to the reliability of the English Wikipedia. Other edits of yours are borderline fabrication of sources. Please desist. Nemo 21:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Amigao, this is a collaborative project. You mentioned something about a misunderstanding of policy in your unblock request, but that is completely inappropriate here: this isn't about some policy about sources or whatever, it is about a bigger thing--the spirit of the project. Please respond, and respond more timely, and respond even when not under threat of sanctions. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
But for the most part, you're not removing disinformation. You're removing routine journalistic coverage. The only suspect content I've seen you touch was in one of the Nemo bis diffs, in which RT claimed that Italian police had injured 80 protesters, while reliable sources said it was one person that had been injured. You deleted the RT source but left the misinformation in the article! The rest of the stuff you're un-sourcing includes things that have nothing to do with the Kremlin's interests, things like French celebrities dying in helicopter crashes in Argentina, for example. Putin wouldn't care about stuff like that, so I don't understand why you expect to waste other editors' time finding new sources that say the same thing. If it's important enough for you to delete the deprecated source, then it should be important enough for you to supply a replacement source yourself. Geogene (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
The edits you wisely reverted are a replica of edits deleted recently at 2008 Tibetan unrest by user AdoTang. Can we flag the IP address ? I had already pinged the editor on the talk, but haven't received a response. Then, a reinsertion of edits... Thanks again. Pasdecomplot (talk) 08:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
What do you think? 27.104.203.24 (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
It took me 10 seconds to find a replacement for the reference you deleted from the 2015 Transnistrian parliamentary election article. Do we need to go back to ANI again? Number 57 20:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Appreciation post for your contribution on Want Want AlphonseOop (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC) |
Your attempt to reintroduce material under false pretenses that were first made by a sock on First island chain is disappointing to say the least, considering that you are not a new editor. The user Albertaont was within their means to remove them. Stick to WP:NPOV and perhaps not actually engage in WP:BE no matter how tempting it may be considering your interests had aligned with them. 209.216.92.203 (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
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. 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.-- Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
You currently appear to be 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. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. PailSimon (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I can see why the Sputnik News link and content you removed from this article is not usually recommended, I understood that when I added it, having reviewed all the guidance, and made a comment in the edit description. However, in this case the source provides an audio interview with Gould himself where all the quotes are directly drawn from, so there is no 'fake news'. I would appreciate that you read this guidance: WP:Deprecated sources, specifically the Acceptable use of deprecated sources section which states: "Deprecated sources can normally be cited as a primary source when the source itself is the subject of discussion, such as to describe its own viewpoint.". It was in this context that I added content here which I feel is a primary and fair representation of the subject of the BLP and it is my view that your deletion should be reverted.
Mountaincirquetalk 08:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Amigao, please respect other editors' contribution. Wikipedia page is not your own property and it is very impolite of you to delete my work without any reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YushanLi 33 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Amigao, you just undid my edits on "Center for China and Globalization" without giving any proper reason. I don't think it follows wiki etiquette to only keep the citation that you found and deny others' although they follow wiki rules too. Please show some respect to other users' contribution and stop this wiki war, which it seems you practiced frequently.
Amigao, I have been very patient with your rude and disrespectful behavior, deleting my contribution with proper citation following Wiki rules WITHOUT ANY SUFFICIENT REASONS and ignoring my inquiry about your contribution. You stand on no ground to judge if my or anyone else' contribution is constructive. STOP this wiki war as you have done and get warned of many times before!
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. 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. --Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 07:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. --Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Essentially your rule is this, you are allowed to revert anyone and any change anything you like, demanding it be "took to the talk page" but you otherwise change things at will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunderland Renaissance (talk • contribs) 03:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, as all other editors. But, what you are doing is unfair, by judging the reliability of sources and removing them on your own. Even if a source is deemed by Wikipedia itself as unreliable, you are of course welcomed to remove them, but, please finish your job with bringing a reliable source, then. What you do is nothing but an unfinished business, as well as looking down to other editors' efforts. Regards. Isik (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC).
Hi - I just blocked that account for edit warring, but looking at the history of the pages they were active on, I see that you were also way past WP:3RR, and I'm leaning towards thinking that I should block your account too in order to avoid an accusation of taking sides. I can't see any reason why WP:3RRNO would apply - the edits had none of the hallmarks of vandalism as far as I can see, they just thought we should use a different version of the name of the party in those articles. Can you shed any light on why you thought they were vandalism? Thanks GirthSummit (blether) 16:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Dear Amigao,
I am launching a complaint about you to administrators in due frustration over your frequent aggressive reverting, policing and blatant POV editing in China related content wherein you frequently dictate the flow of changes in these articles and then frame me as a vandal or edit warrior even when I try to balance them out- Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit Warring by Amigao on China related topics. Thank you. Deb (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Amigao,
I couldn't help notice that you have continued to remove RT references even in situations that are not deprecated per RS/N or RS/P. Indeed, this edit removes the RT sources, but curiously, leaves in the Lenta.ru citation. Whilst I appreciate that RT is not the highest quality source, there is not, as far as I can tell, any consensus to blanket remove it as a source...
I also noticed that you have recently been doing reverts like this, where your rationale is somewhat abrupt, and does not appear to be linkspam per se, as much as it is a likely newbie editor failing to appreciate MOS. It may be better to in the future, leave a note on newbie user's talkpage explaining what if anything, they have messed up, instead of simply leaving terse notes in your revert summary.
Best, BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with ((SUBST:re|BrxBrx))) 05:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Amigao, I have added more references to the article "Alla Taran" and also more information, anyway this woman violinist passed away in 2017, so the template doesn´t correspond. If you want you can see the new editions and remove the template. Thank you very much.--Miskito89 (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
— Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Apple Daily Hong Kong has been shut down, and all artice links are broken, which we currently have 318 of per hk.appledaily.com . Given that Apple Daily was a high traffic website all 318 linked articles have probably been archived at the Wayback Machine and elsewhere. Would it be possible for you to provide archived links for them? Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I've carried out some-- but not all-- of your speedy deletions. I remind you that A7 does not apply if there is a "credible claim of significance", a statement , whether or not sourced, that might lead a reasonable person to think an acceptable Wikipedia article might be written. And G11 does not apply unless the article is so highly promotional that an acceptable article would be impossible without complete rewriting. This does not mean I necessarily think the articles should be kept, just that it would require afd to remove them. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I really disagree with your last edit that removed an entire section that was backed by studies and reported by a professional journalist https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1034809870
You had claimed it was an opinion piece but it's not even an opinion. The TRT journalist was citing research found facts in the article and not opinions. He was merely reporting on what the research like ie - Boston University, Rhodium group, etc have been saying and you are making it seem like it's all his opinions when he is just an objective journalist reporting what the research says. It's not like TRT is a distrusted media source in wikipedia.
In addtion, by your logic. Why not also remove all the "OPINION" pieces of Chellaney? Every article he writes is his opinion with A lack of evidence. If you are neutral, you would similarly remove all Chellany's opinion pieces as they are just his opinions by him that is contradicted by research. If Chellany opinions can stay. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/china-one-belt-one-road-loans-debt-by-brahma-chellaney-2017-01
Then I suggest you do not discriminate against the TRT journalist who was btw not even making an opinion but pointing out hard facts AND i believe you were wrong to selectively remove that entire paragaph. Cheers! Nvtuil (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding your edit summary here, when you refer to the source in question as having been "deprecated", do you mean that Wikipedia no longer considers Press TV a reliable source, or were you referring to the fact that the link went dead? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi, one week ago I created a article about Afghan singer on Simple.Wiki and her name is here too, can I create a article for her in en.wiki too or it will be spam? ZEP55 (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Look, I don't have the time and energy to spend it politicking and finding out which sources are going to be deprecated, or I would have weighed in earlier. Blocking PressTV from holocaust articles (or on anything else where Iran's national politics are concerned) makes sense, but censoring factual content at SAIPA is truly not a healthy decision. The referenced articles are factual (with a promotional slant) on topics which are simply not covered everywhere. What can we do when the deprecation was applied incorrectly? I want to be able to cite facts, that's all. This is as asinine as prohibiting citing the Daily Mail's coverage of the 1969 British Automobile Show, long before that paper became what it is today. I know you are not the ruler of Wikipedia, but this truly is a slippery slope where a few editors with an axe to grind can remove such immense amounts of content. I bid you to consider the impact of these actions. Mr.choppers | ✎ 12:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
It looks like you're currently blindly deleting Press TV refs, even in cases where they are probably more reliable than anyone else, e.g. quoting the leader of Hezbollah. Please stop. It's not helpful and borders on disruptive editing. Discuss your changes first, look for alternative sources, or tag them. Don't just delete them. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
You have been warned several times[1][2][3] by other editors, and you continue month after month without even engaging other editors. Here you tagged a direct quote as CN, although a simple search would lead back to an AFP article that was copied in multiple well known reliable sources. By the way, quotes are subject to BLP, so without a reliable source they should be deleted completely, which you didn't do either. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
References
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 03:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
This notice is being given to everyone who has reverted on the page Adrian Zenz this month. It is not an indication that you have done anything wrong. It is to inform you that the page Adrian Zenz is under a WP:1RR restriction until further notice in response to excessive edit warring on the page. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 03:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Least obsessive China watcher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.109.215 (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello! My group and I just wanted to inquire on which aspects of our edits you perceived to be "puffery"? We are a group of university students who just want to learn more! Thanks in advance :) Zeynepkaraibrahim (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Amigao,
Please use 'Day Month Year' formatted dates on Australian related pages. Your edit here used a 'Year Month Day' date format not often used in Australia, and different from the rest of the page. Regards, 220 of ßorg 14:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, please stop mass-removing sources on the basis that they're "redundant". Just because a statement has two or three sources does not mean that they are redundant. It's often useful to provide multiple sources for the same statement, especially if some of the sources are paywalled or in a foreign language. Moreover, sometimes multiple sources are provided because they each support part of the statement, in which case they may all be needed to meet WP:V. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Subsidies in Iran has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Please don't restore that source. Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_296#RfC:_Sputnik that source has been deprecated. Meters (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Genocide Denial. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
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. Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
FYI Sunderland Renaissance is Antonian Sapphire Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Antonian Sapphire. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war in the eve of 35th memorial anniversary of the historical article on 1987 Lieyu massacre. This means that you have changed third time of the content back to how you think it should be without reading clearly on the notes and sources clearly. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Mickie-Mickie (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Please stop adding "Chinese conspiracy theorist" categories to the Wikipedia pages of Chinese journalists. WP:CATDEF says: A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having.
If the article does not describe them as/apply the "conspiracy theorist" label to them, then you cannot add this category. Endwise (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at History of foreign relations of China 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.= --Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you for your work on Wikipedia's reliability, and for finding the deprecated source I couldn't! Johnson524 (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
You need to stop vandalizing wikipedia pages with misinformation to use wrong acronyms. Your vandilzation is being used to misinform people. RJS001 (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Petroleum industry in Iran has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
You reverted some edits on 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre but here are what the sources say:
So we shouldn't put CCP in these cases.AAAAA143222 (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Seeing your talk page I have some ideas why you reverted my edit and I know we wont reach an agreement. So I will take this incident to noticeboard for more opinons. Thank you for your times. --Someone97816 (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Seem like you have a problem with things that is from chinese arent you? You know, it's kind of suspicious when you basically use the excuse of "non-WP:RS" to eliminate the opinions from different sides. And seeing your talk page, I guess this is also not your first time --Someone97816 (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
As expected actually. Gonna take this to noticeboard --Someone97816 (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
I only add the Chinese gov reaction of it. Of are you suggesting Chinese perpective is not important --Someone97816 (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Greetings. You reverted my edit on Censorship in China because you saw what I added to the article's introduction as redundant, in your own terms. Even if I may disagree, I can certainly understand that sentiment and stand by the current version of the introduction following your revert. However, in reverting my edit, you also--I believe, unknowingly?--reverted two other more significant (and completely technical) changes I made to the article in the same edit.
I politely ask you to be more considerate of the full scope and content of edits before jumping to revert them in entirety. Thank you. --Adam8410 (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Amigao, I am a Wikipedia education student, and is using Two Centenaries as my stub article, which would have to be submitted in late May. I saw you reverting all my edits on the article Two Centenaries, and would like to ask for clarification on your edits in the article. All sources cited in this article are academic sources and are all peer-reviewed. These sources were written by experts in Chinese politics and economies , so I believe it has a high degree of credibility and authority. I will be continuously working on this article in the upcoming month, so please, do allow me to do so when editing in the future. Thank you very much for your kind cooperation Cm0015 (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Dear Amigao,
Thank you for keeping close eyes on Hugo de Burgh's biography. Could you please stop changing the latest version of Hugo de Burgh's intro back to the old version as some of the information you did are out of date. And the ones published now are according to his latest biography
Many thanks
CGTN may be depply flawed as source, but in this instance, it is one of the few sources that we can find online that precise that abortion in china is in fact not available only for health reasosn as of now. The current redaction of tha page state incorrect informations by saying that abortion is available ONLY for health reasons. Access to abortions for non-medical reasons has been restricted, but not prohibited. Snarcky1996 (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Worker at NATO's Atlantic Council
Yeah this (idiot) is clearly filled with conflict of interests and should be removed from wikipediaRJS001 (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Please stop mass-changing "Communist Party of China" to "Chinese Communist Party". Both translations are commonly used in English-language reliable sources, and there is no reason every Wikipedia article needs to use the same one. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.—Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
How is this moron thinking it’s CCP? Like seriously?! What obviously needs to be done is it all needs to be changed to CPC. RJS001 (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
You need to label all changes you made while stating why you did. As you have not done this please be aware it constitutes as vandalism. Thank you RJS001 (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Amigao, for Pacific Basin's wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Basin_Shipping_Limited), please note that the CEO info is wrong now, the current CEO should be Martin Fruergaad (see https://www.pacificbasin.com/en/about/management.php), and also the current links for "Company Profile" and "Our History" are broken, please change to the 2 links below, (https://www.pacificbasin.com/en/about/glance.php) (https://www.pacificbasin.com/en/about/glance.php) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brichan999 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Is fails to meet notability because it is WP:CRYSTAL Wikipedia doesn't predict future outcomes of non-news. The airport cannot be in default when the loan isn't in re-payment process per the Attorney General of Uganda in the Parliament. Although its fanciful that maybe one day this could happen it isn't news and shouldn't be included as 'fact' when it's not.
(QUOTE)“This contract was signed on 31st March 2015, with a grace period of seven years, the first repayment date is 1st April 2022. Government cannot be in default during the grace period,” Kiryowa said.
On the arbitration process that reportedly favors China, Kiryowa said if Uganda’s rights are violated in the contract, Uganda can defend itself in any part of the world and it doesn’t matter if it is in China.(END QUOTE) Link
CaribDigita (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Debt-trap diplomacy. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)