User talk:Amigao

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)

He is probably getting paid to do this or has vested interest in propagandising while "fighting propaganda". The Atlantic adjacent think tankie China hawk Orocairion (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Enrico Chou (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, sending thanks for your improvements to my articles. JSwift49 00:48, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Great work, JSwift49. - Amigao (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok source?

Would you call this a reliable source? Is this an ok source to use in an article? Thepharoah17 (talk) 03:25, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Looking at similar past guidance, the People's Daily should probably be treated like WP:CHINADAILY or WP:XINHUA. However, the place to pose the question for further discussion would be WP:RSN. I would also generally recommend CiteUnseen. - Amigao (talk) 03:27, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Falun Gong, a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC News was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Hep regarding SSMB

hey,@Amigao, I published a article without Help:Unreviewed new page, it was withdrawn, so now i want help of other editors, to improve the article. It's in Draft: Steady-state microbunching(SSMB), it's an important article because of it's accelerator based approach of generating EUV light. Here is the link of the of the help page for more information in this matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#h-Help_regarding_SSMB-EUV-20260909163800 Sayanpdd (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2026 (UTC)