User Talk: Amigao

{{archives
|auto= short
|index= /Archive index
}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(30d)
| archive=User talk:Amigao/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=3
| maxarchivesize=150K
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadsleft=5
| minthreadstoarchive=2
}}

why are you removing so much sourced info

I worked so hard on these articles. Luka Maglc (talk) 04:22, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

:also the keyboard spam account name is me. I didnt have access to my email. Luka Maglc (talk) 04:23, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
::If you didn't have access to one of the accounts, then why were you using both accounts to edit the ''same '' article on 7 June? That is what the edit history of Freedom of speech in China ↗ clearly shows. - Amigao (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
:::I answered your question on the notice board, but you should not be removing sourced info, and hard work done on articles. Luka Maglc (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Is what your doing to me have anything to do with this "
:::This user is a participant in WikiProject Reliability.
:::This user participates in WikiProject Spam.
:::Educate yourself about state-backed information warfare efforts on Wikipedia
:::And check out the Wikimedia Anti-Disinformation Repository. In particular, CiteUnseen and the Unreliable/Predatory Source Detectorare two great tools that will make your editing more effective." Because im from Texas, and my source were completely fine. Luka Maglc (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
::::So you had access to both accounts on the same day and then proceeded to edit-war using both on Freedom of speech in China ↗ in a back-and-forth manner. Interesting. Also, I recommend that you review WP:RSP ↗ and avoid WP:PRIMARY ↗ sourcing for anything remotely controversial or disputed. - Amigao (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::That is not edit waring and the the disputed info was disputed on the page that just blanked Luka Maglc (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::Freedom of speech in China ↗ was restored to WP:QUO ↗ and it would be best for you to seek consensus on that page's talk. Amigao (talk) 05:03, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::That is a rule for edit waring im the only person to edit it, there was never a war, Luka Maglc (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::You were reverted by Jfire as you can see on the article's edit history ↗. - Amigao (talk) 05:08, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::That is not an edit war and did what he wanted me to do to put it up, he told me on his talk page. Luka Maglc (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::Jfire's comments were very coherent and spot-on. It doesn't seem like his advice was followed, though. - Amigao (talk) 05:15, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::I did Luka Maglc (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::How so? That is not what the article's history actually shows. - Amigao (talk) 05:24, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::"China is not a freedom of speech absolutist country. China will openly censor and remove content if it violates the law or encourages breaking it (e.g., terrorist recruitment, child exploitation, direct incitement to violence). China’s constitutional interpretation treats freedom of speech as not equal to unrestricted speech, citing Article 51, which states that citizens “shall not undermine social order, violate the Constitution and laws, and harm the legitimate freedom and rights of the state, society or of the collective, nor infringe upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens” when exercising the right to freedom of speech. These rights are further defined by a body of laws and regulations that establish the boundaries of legal expression. Scholars distinguish between non-malicious censorship, the targeted removal of specific illegal content (e.g., terrorist recruitment, child exploitation, direct incitement to violence) conducted transparently and with legal recourse, and malicious censorship, the suppression of lawful political dissent, criticism of officials, or ethnic/religious expression under vague or unequally enforced laws, describing China’s content moderation as sometimes "content-neutral" or "keywords-based" rather than explicitly viewpoint-based, and official Chinese sources frame removal of content as non-malicious, and arguing that leaving such posts online endangers public safety.
:::::::::::::Critics such as Western nations, international organizations, and some legal scholars respond that China’s censorship apparatus is malicious because it routinely removes non-violent political speech, operates with opaque algorithms, no independent oversight, and the practical scope of freedom of speech in China is significantly narrower than the protections described in Article 35, citing the application of national security laws, censorship regulations, and broad constitutional limitations under Article 51. Chinese officials maintain that freedom of speech is protected by law but must be exercised in a manner consistent with security, social stability, public order, and the lawful rights and interests of others. They also point to broad international support for their human rights approach, including a joint statement by 80 of the 120-member Non-Aligned Movement rejecting “selectivity and politicization” of human rights issues." Luka Maglc (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::This looks very much like a WP:POVFORK ↗ as Jfire correctly pointed out. I agree with Jfire that existing articles already cover the topic adequately. Jfire's advice here ↗ was especially sound. - Amigao (talk) 05:32, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::A POV fork happens when an editor disagrees about an article's content. I never had a disagreement with anyone, or any other article when it was made. Luka Maglc (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::This is starting to sound like WP:IDHT ↗ because Jfire reverted you and explained perfectly well their rationale for doing so. - Amigao (talk) 05:42, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::pls stop Wikilawyering ↗, thats not even what failure to get the point means I made one single edit. I talked to him, and implemented his suggestions of how it works in reality, and he never made another edit again. Luka Maglc (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::One single edit? Really? I count 12 edits between your two accounts on the article's history ↗ as of this timestamp. - Amigao (talk) 05:50, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::You where talking about Jfire he only edited once. Luka Maglc (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::User talk:Jfire#Question? Luka Maglc (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::What is your issue, I haven't done anything to you. Im not understanding. Luka Maglc (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Formatting of citations for Chinese-language sources?

Hello! I noticed that you did some work cleaning up citations on Both red and expert ↗. Thanks for that! I was wondering about some of the changes you made like blanking out the |title attribute of some citations, or removing the |script-title of certain citations and moving it to |title instead. I'm confused on why that was needed, because from what I could tell by looking at the last example in the Chinese manual of style ↗, the |title is where you put the Pinyin, and the |script-title is where you put the Chinese characters. This is also backed up by the Citation Style 1 guide ↗, which says the |title should contain a romanization if the actual citation's title is in a non-Latin script, while |script-title is for the non-Latin title. And Template:Cite web ↗ says the |title is required, so if we can't put the Pinyin in there, what do we put instead?

I think you did something similar with |journal, |script-journal and |trans-journal on one citation, and the same rules seem to apply for |journal as well as any other parameter with a |script- and |trans- variation. Also, in one case you cleared out the |author-mask attribute that was displaying the authors' Chinese names? I was including that based on the second-to-last example in the Chinese manual of style, where it says you can use the |author-mask attribute to display an author's name in Chinese characters, but are there any cases where I shouldn't do this? In general, including Chinese characters helps me look through sources more easily, but I want to know the correct standard to use so I can adhere to it for anything I do in the future. Calisyrre (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

:You're correct that MOS:ZH ↗ is the guidance to follow here. - Amigao (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
::OK, thank you! I hope you don't mind if I go back and restore the |title attributes and other things where I can? I won't bring back everything - in hindsight I do think having Pinyin for the quotations as well was a little excessive, so I won't include it going forward. Calisyrre (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Agreed, {{u|Calisyrre}}. Pinyin in the title and quotes does not add much for the reader and only makes the citation longer than it needs to be. - Amigao (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Due to concerns about canvassing, do you think it's best that I avoid commenting in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sense of community for the Chinese nation ↗? I don't really feel strongly towards keeping the article, but I avoided participating in the discussion due to concerns about canvassing. The Account 2 (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

:I have no issues with you participating in that AfD. - Amigao (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks for the reply! The Account 2 (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

GenScript Biotech

Hi Amigao!

Following your feedback on the draft I submitted on the GenScript Biotech ↗ Talk page, I made some revisions to the draft ↗. I wanted to see if you have any thoughts for further improvement or if you think this would be appropriate for the article. Thanks! Melis for GenScript (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

independently classified and collapsed my comments

I noticed that you independently classified and collapsed my comments as LLM-generated under WP.
The points themselves were mine, although I used an LLM for translation and wording assistance. Your conclusion about how the comments should be treated is therefore an interpretation, not an uncontested fact.
Please identify the specific wording or features on which you based that classification. Given that you are already involved in the underlying content disputes, I think it would be better for an uninvolved editor to review the matter rather than for your own assessment to be treated as final. <span style="color: #6640FF;">'''Lavender Poison'''</span>※Leaf 19:09, 10 July 2026 (UTC)