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.

China Global Television Network

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at China Global Television Network. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Per the conversation on the talk page it has been highlighted already this is not the name of the institution and yet you continue to vandalise the page further. Please kindly correct your actions accordingly. This kind of action is reserved for governments and Wikpedia should be above this.

Please discuss on the SUCCESS talk page

Instead of reverting my disupted inline tag, please add your thoughts to the Talk section, thanks.

Hello, Amigao. You have new messages at Talk:S.U.C.C.E.S.S.#United Front?.
Message added 06:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aufumy (talk) 06:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPUTNIK Reference Removals Cautionary Note

Hi Amigao, thanks for taking the time to help improve Wikipedia. I noticed that you are keen to remove sources referencing Sputnik, using the WP:SPUTNIK reliable sources consensus.

I would like to try and direct your attention to the edit you made on SU-25. When you removed that reference, it was a named reference. This meant that the subsequent references that depended on the reference were broken. Additionally, you didn't remove the quotations that came from that source. Everything was replaced by a bot because of the broken reference.

I guess I would like to add that I don't completely agree with your wholesale edit removals of sputnik references considering at least in this article's case, the quotes from the government representative were reported by the state news agency RIA which is still currently itemized as "no consensus" on the WP:RS perennial sources list. Additionally, these quotes were picked up by reliable sources and further expanded upon, so it is possible that additional verification was made in order to pass the edit desk.

Happy editing. Inomyabcs (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, there is nothing wrong with citing RIA Novosti on Chelyabinsk meteor. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#RIA_Novosti in particular. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nexperia

Hi Amigao, Please refrain from inserting politically biased content. Zootsuitz (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SASAC

Hello,

A parent company is a company that owns 51% or more voting stock in another firm (or subsidiary) to control management and operations by influencing or electing its board of directors.

SASAC is a special commission of the People's Republic of China, directly under the State Council. It was founded in 2003 through the consolidation of various other industry-specific ministries. SASAC is responsible for managing state-owned enterprises (SOEs), including appointing top executives and approving any mergers or sales of stock or assets, as well as drafting laws related to SOEs.

SASAC is neither the owner nor the parent of any of the companies under its supervision. It is a government commission, not an economic entity. The owner of all of these companies is the Chinese government, hence they are state owned as was stated in the infobox already. It is tempting to think of SASAC as huge holding company but that it is not. These companies do report to SASAC, but they are not owned by SASAC. Hence we should not refer to SASAC as the owner or parent company of any of the Chinese SOEs. Best regards Andro611 (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated sources

Hi, please do not remove deprecated sources or content sourced to them – WP:DEPRECATION is not the same as blacklisting: Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately (Wikipedia:Deprecated sources). Instead, you're welcome to tag such occurrences with Template:Deprecated inline. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this is the second notice you've received about mass removal of Sputnik references. You not only did not respond to the previous one by Inomyabcs but continued with the mass removal. Please stop. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are not being removed indiscriminately. Please do not restore deprecated sources (per WP:ONUS) and if you would like to have a discussion to un-deprecate a particular source, you're more than free to propose an RfC at WP:RSN. Amigao (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but it doesn't work this way. You CANNOT just remove sourced text only because it's been taken from a deprecated source. And I doubt your rate of 1-2 edits a minute means careful consideration.

I ask you to stop. You've already been brought to ANI and even blocked precisely for the same behaviour, yet it seems you haven't taken this lesson onboard. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated sources cannot be used to back factual claims, except in strict cases of WP:ABOUTSELF. Also, WP:BURDEN is a core policy that applies here and there are cases where a citation needed tagged is added when a deprecated source is removed. Amigao (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You CANNOT REMOVE SOURCES OF STATEMENTS. Period. Poor sources can - and should - be replaced with better sources, but it's a damaging practice to replace the actual source with a "CN" template. PLEASE STOP NOW. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's "damaging" then you probably should re-review WP:BURDEN. Amigao (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"User talk:Amigao" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect User talk:Amigao has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 13 § User talk:Amigao until a consensus is reached. Amigao (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

241st Territorial Defense Brigade

Thank you for deleting that unreliable reference. I added it because it came up in search and was in English. Once the warning came up, I could find the reference that was causing the warning. I replaced it with a Russian source stating same information. Also I had a wrong ref for that sentence. So thank you for helping me fix it. Ceriy (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help on the tricameral parliament

As User:RovingPersonalityConstruct got rid of the tricameral section for no reason, you need to help me discuss it at the Talk:List of legislatures by number of members#Republic of China section. The ROC tricameral parliament still exists in name in the original constitution. Only the Additional Articles applied in Taiwan has the unicameral parliament. -76.68.77.224 (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]