User talk:Amigao

Hello, Amigao! I was wondering which WikiTool or script you use to add archive links to articles. It would be really helpful for my work refurbishing old articles. Thank you in advance! Yue🌙 23:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:WP:IABOT - Amigao (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I found Internationalism a highly scientific journal, and it is printed in the UK. How should we evaluate the reliability of a journal? Mehdiabbasi (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

So why you revert several version about chinese cities by I?You did't explain the reason. Cs haoh (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, Amigao! As you have seen, I recently created articles about People's Daily Online and Xinhuanet. When linking the news agencies within the source citation, do you think the wiki article for the news portal or the broader news agency (i.e. People's Daily and Xinhua News Agency) should be linked. Thanks in advance! The Account 2 (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I usually extend you more grace than others who are upset about the atrocious violation of WP:NPOV that is our China politics articles but this edit is really pushing the envelope [https://theedgemalaysia.com/node/706492] - furthermore it is not compliant with WP:STATUSQUO and as such I would respectfully ask you to self-revert., Simonm223 (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:Stephen S. Roach's opinion is an eminently due opinion to include. Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::An op-ed piece requires WP:INTEXT attribution per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. - Amigao (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::If you put it back with that attribution in-text I'd be satisfied. It's more than a little absurd to delete criticism of state-propaganda against China from the article about anti-Chinese rhetoric. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::This is probably a discussion better suited for the article's talk page, but an op-ed piece should not be in an article lede paragraph. Amigao (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm keeping it here because you're the one who violated WP:STATUSQUO by deleting status quo text in discussion at article talk without achieving consensus. Me agreeing that I'd be satisfied if you put it back with attribution was a compromise. Simonm223 (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::WP:STATUSQUO is a wonderful WP:ESSAY, but it is not core Wikipedia WP:POLICY as is WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV or WP:ONUS for that matter. Happy to have the discussion on the article's talk page about the appropriateness of an op-ed in the lede paragraph. - Amigao (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello Amigao,

Re your recent removal of sources on two different pages by citing Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, please kindly note that it is not a policy or guideline. Also, the phrase “{{green|context matters tremendously}}” appears on that page at least three times, with “context matters” linked to Wikipedia:CONTEXTMATTERS (which *is* a guideline), stating that:

{{blockquote |“The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.”}}

AFAICT, the reason that their reliability is questioned is that they are state-owned and may advocate for the government.

The Wen Wei Po link that you removed is used to support content that landfill can cause air pollution. That report is not about politics and does *not* advocate for the government. It’s doing the opposite. I cited that source because there were interviews of people who were affected by the landfill of construction waste, with very valuable comments that other reports probably won’t have (e.g., they mentioned large amount of dust was resuspended by vehicles, many dumpsters carried wastes that were not properly covered, the apartment and balcony were filled with dust even if the person lived on the upper floor, the severity varied with wind/weather conditions, etc. IMO, that source was criticising the government. I did plan to expand the article with that source.

The other source that you removed, the CGTN one, I cited it to support that Winter Clothes Festival has an alternative name: Hanoi Festival. Actually this is WP:SKYBLUE for most Chinese, as “hanyi” is just the Pinyin of the Chinese words “寒衣”, the Chinese name of the festival (and “節” means “festival”, thus “寒衣節” is the same as “Hanyi Festival”). However, since our editors are from all around the world, and some may even find AGF or a simple factcheck / web search too difficult, I have added the blue little clicky for them. And, IMO that source is also a very good read for our readers to understand more about the festival. Again, the alternative name of a local festival has nothing to do with politics, and I believe a source close to the Chinese Gov would be much more reliable than other English sources when used to support the name of a traditional Chinese festival.

That said, I don’t think I’m restoring the two sources, as I don’t have the time/energy for the possible “Wikipedia-style” lengthy discussion ... though I think it’s necessary to explain my rationales for adding the sources.

By the way, thank you for pointing me to MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID in another edit of yours, although I’m afraid you have misread what it says. I have edited the article to align with the MOS. Regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for the note. For issues of any WP:SKYBLUE, one would not need to cite a WP:RS, much less a deprecated source like WP:CGTN. Also, while WP:RSP is an extremely helpful information page, the underlying WP:RS is, in fact, core WP:POLICY. Deprecated source can typically be used for WP:ABOUTSELF issues, but not much else. - Amigao (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for the reply. I think I’ve explained clear (and lengthy) enough why I’ve cited CGTN. It’s to satisfy editors’ desire for sources, to provide more information about the topic, and that I have carefully weighed it according to our policy, and believe it is reliable for the content it supports and it is an appropriate source for that content (and the same applies to the Wen Wui Po source).

::Re WP:RS, it is a core policy of course. It is the core policy that Wikipedia:CONTEXTMATTERS points to, and it’s the core policy that states “The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content”. Again, I still believe “{{green|context matters tremendously}}”, as the extremely helpful information page WP:RSP stated. As this is not about winning and I’ve stated my points already, it’s probably better for me to disengage to save everyone’s time. Reasonable people can disagree. Regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. i know you're a dog (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)