User talk:Amigao

TikTok

This may be the fifth edit [1] out of similar ones that you have made and been reverted in the past day or so.[2][3][4][5] It is becoming Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and Wikipedia:Edit warring. Most cybersecurity experts quoted have been saying the concerns are still hypothetical or there has been no public evidence yet. Have you seen the classified briefing? CurryCity (talk) 04:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Nothing at all tendentious about adding in appropriate WP:INTEXT attribution for interviews carried out by CNN. In fact, WP:INTEXT is always required for WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, which is what this is. - Amigao (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Love your input

Hi @Amigao because you've done lots on the topic, there's an discussion here which would benefit from your input, if you could make time.

Best regards,

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Citation barnstar

		The Citation Barnstar
		Thank you for adding reliable sources to articles, helping clean up citation templates, and scrutinizing the use of unreliable sources. Zylostr (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Foreign Policy of China

Hi, I saw you edit Foreign Policy of China. I also saw you are a proponent of fighting online information warfare on wikipedia. Can you take a look at Foreign Policy of China, it seems that one user has made it a propoganda piece rather than a neutral POV article.

Thanks, - AH (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

6th Comac C919 delivery to china eastern airlines

Can I use 'Xinhua' or 'china daily' reference, those are No consensus, and are generally reliable for non political topics. Sayanpdd (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Best to always review the community consensus at WP:CHINADAILY and WP:XINHUA. - Amigao (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Chinese People's Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries

Committee of China's Conference for the Defense of World Peace was the predecessor organization of the Chinese People's Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries and part of the subsequent merger. Please do not remove history to fulfill your anti-China political agenda. TinaLees-Jones (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I try to understand your political activities with the best of intentions, but the obvious anti-Chinese malice that exists in all the edits about you and the objective historical presentation by deleting entries. There are many reports about you on google, I hope you love your own feathers. TinaLees-Jones (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Re

I had already made my claim on the talk page before you deleted it, you should have properly replied to that claim first before maliciously deleting it. Your anti-Chinese stance is offensive. TinaLees-Jones (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

TinaLees-Jones, remember to WP:AGF and discuss on the article's talk page first. - Amigao (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Look for yourself at the timing of that talk page and who was deleted first (you) and who was argued first on the talk (me). Be a good person and don't break Wikipedia rules even if you are anti-Chinese. Respected! TinaLees-Jones (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758

Hi @Amigao, thanks for your note. As you restored this item to a rather old version, which disallowed many other people's edits, I have restored it to 23:08, 26 May 2024. I would appreciate it if you could clearly indicate which part needs to be sourced or quoted, and leave a marker there. If you want to remove the whole text directly, I expect a more specific explanation in the revision history. Yoaman (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Yoatari, the removed text contained WP:OR and was not backed up with reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. - Amigao (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Amigao, let's discuss this in detail.

The only words that I ADDED to Controvesory are:

As noted above, General Assembly Resolution 2758 is the official position of the United Nations "concerning a one-China policy" and has not changed since 1971.[12-14] However, there have been attempts by the Taipei government and certain UN member states to reinterpret Resolution 2758 in a complex and multifaceted way.

The first sentence describes the official UN position, which was documented in [11] and [12]. References [13] and [14] are recordings of Secretary-General's press conferences, which also support this description.

The second sentence introduces this section (Controvesory) in a neutral way and serves for a better logic of the text.

I will explain why I made other changes later, but you can explain now why you thought they were "not supported by reliable sources". Yoaman (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Yoatari, please correct me if I'm wrong but there were no reliable WP:SECONDARY sources cited to back any of that up. In general, that article is in dire need of more reliable secondary sources throughout. There is far too much interpretation of WP:PRIMARY sources, which is a form of WP:OR. - Amigao (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The official UN documents and the recordings of the Secretary-General's press conferences are indeed primary sources. They are sufficient to make descriptive claims about the official UN position. Wikipedia:Evaluating sources has already described in which cases we need further secondary and tertiary sources. Therefore, it is an abuse of the "Primary sources" tag to add it to the "Later development" section. Furthermore, as I have already commented in the revision history, it is inappropriate to rely heavily on a CRS report to describe the official US position. Yoaman (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

For contentious topics, it's always best to rely much more on reliable WP:SECONDARY sources than primary ones. Agreed that CRS was being relied on a bit too heavily. Additional secondary citations have been added and more will be added. - Amigao (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Even if you think the UN's position is not neutral, it is bad practice to abuse the rules on sources. Again, we don't need secondary or tertiary sources to describe the UN's official position if there are primary sources, according to Wikipedia:Evaluating sources Yoaman (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Now I go on to explain my other changes. This is a wiki article on the UNGA resolution. Of course we don't have to follow the international rules of procedure exactly, but it's still important to provide a focused, balanced summary of the parties involved.

I think you are also aware that the version of Controvery that you have tried to restore is all about cross-strait relations and lacks focus on the resolution. That is why I feel it necessary to add an introductory paragraph.

Finally, why are these German analysts important? Yoaman (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Correction: American analysts, not German Yoaman (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

No issues with an introductory paragraph as long as we can back it up with something beyond primary sources. - Amigao (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

See comments above. Please review Wikipedia:Evaluating sources Yoaman (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:EVAL, "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims require a secondary source." - Amigao (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Quoting official United Nations position papers ≠ “interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims” Yoaman (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

No issues with direct quotes from primary sources within reason (or, in essence, point #3 of WP:PRIMARY). - Amigao (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)