User talk:Amigao

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)

@Yoatari Lil bibby Boy Jarvis Landry via Ruben 24.228.214.169 (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Registered Agents Inc. for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Registered Agents Inc. is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Registered Agents Inc. until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

CapnPhantasm (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi! Please be careful with your edit summaries, since you deleted content referenced to a Columbia University Press book in an edit that only gave additional context and citations as an edit summary. This is important to be mindful of because "mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading". Thanks! — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi Amigao :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is SPA at Talk:Gurbaksh Chahal. Thank you. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Primavera Captial - 26th June undid revision

Hi Amigao,

Thanks for overseeing the edits I had done & for bringing to attention that NYTimes is unreliable.

Would like an opportunity to explain the edits:

1. The current statement on the page (which was brought to life again on 26th June) sounds a bit biased, specially since even FT (which is added a reference for those lines) has added the below lines to it's article at a later date to make it sound more neutral: "Primavera Capital, the firm later founded by Fred Hu, has subsequently stated that he is not a member of the CCP or any other political party and was not a CCP member at the time when he was an executive at Goldman Sachs."

FT article link: https://www.ft.com/content/eac99fd9-0c30-4141-821a-45348f61c113

2. The other references added for the statement mention 'alleged' ties:

The below statement in Guardian: "DeSantis stripped four private schools of state scholarship money, alleging without evidence they had “direct ties to the Chinese Communist party”

Guardian article link: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/02/ron-desantis-florida-private-schools-china-communist-party

I believe as Wiki editors we need to walk the thin line and leave some space for neutrality. Hence, I edited the statement.

Please do let me know your thoughts on the above.

Thanks WorldPeace888 (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)