User talk:Amrflh00

February 2025

Hello, I'm Jessicapierce. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Persib Bandung have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Jessicapierce (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Overseas Chinese

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Overseas Chinese, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Malaysian Chinese. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Stop adding that repeatedly, There is no firm figure for Indonesia, anything added is just speculation. Hzh (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Discussion is in Talk:Chinese Indonesians#Concerns about population statistic and its conflict with census data, please discuss before making the same edits that other editors rejected. Hzh (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing someone of being disruptive just because they added a different data point backed by a verifiable source is not a valid argument. If you believe there’s no “firm figure” for Indonesia, then the same must apply to other countries like Thailand and others, whose numbers also come from external estimates, not official censuses.

Calling the most recent OCAC estimate “just speculation” while you still accepting older or equally unverifiable estimates elsewhere shows a double standard. You cannot selectively apply skepticism only when the number doesn't fit your comfortability.

This is not content dispute, it’s about your refusal to accept a number you personally disagree with. And instead of discussing it fairly, you fall back on warnings, labels, and attempts to silence edits you don't like. If anyone is disrupting the article, it’s the one trying to control what facts are allowed based on personal comfort not the one adding sourced information. 125.164.4.78 (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are Amrflh00 then? Hzh (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I’m Amrflh00. I chose to edit using an IP for now, which is completely allowed under Wikipedia’s guidelines. What matters here is not who edits, but what sources are used and how fairly they are treated.

Let’s focus on the content, not usernames, unless your goal is to avoid discussing the actual issue. 125.164.4.78 (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good, at least we now know Native99girl was right to say that you were switching between IP and this account (you complained about her saying that). At the moment, the article is treating different sources equally, which is how it should be done. It doesn't say which is the correct one, it's up to the reader to decide, which is fair. You said all the valid sources should be given, if you want others added, those could be discussed. No one has agreed that only the OCAC one should be considered the only correct one, therefore you are doing against what other people think. If you are arguing that only three person participated in the discussion, then you should start a Request for Comment, inviting other people to contribute. Otherwise you have zero support for your edit. Hzh (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying the article treats all sources fairly, but that’s not what’s actually happening. Every time OCAC is mentioned, people quickly try to call it “speculation” or “unreliable”, but other sources don’t get the same kind of criticism. That’s not equal treatment, that’s bias.

I never said only OCAC should be used. What I said is simple: if we include one estimate, we should treat all sources with the same standard. It’s not fair to pick and choose what’s “valid” just because you like one number better.

You say I have no support. But honestly, this whole time it’s just been you and one or two others pushing your view and calling it consensus. That’s not real consensus, that’s just control.

If more people need to join, I’m totally fine with starting an RFC. But let’s not pretend the current version shows community agreement. It only shows that a small group keeps shutting down any different opinion. 125.164.4.78 (talk) 03:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that matters is that you know you have zero support, but you still keep doing the same edits across multiple pages, which is why your action is considered disruptive. Keep doing it and you will be blocked from editing (this and the IP address). If you want to start a RfC, use a simple question which is the edit you want to make (e.g. "should Chinese Indonesians only be described as the largest overseas Chinese community in the world"). Give more detailed reason only in the discussion. See the RfC page on how to do it. Hzh (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You keep repeating saying I have “zero support,” but there hasn’t even been an open RfC yet. So saying that now is just your own assumption, not a fact.

Honestly, I don’t get why you’re so afraid of the OCAC data. It’s a real source, and just because you don’t like the number doesn’t make it disruptive. If you disagree, talk about the content, don’t start throwing threats about being blocked.

I’m not here to cause problems. But when someone adds valid data and you reject it just because it doesn’t fit your opinion, that’s not how Wikipedia should work. It’s about the sources, not who adds them. Amrflh00 (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We had a discussion, and you had zero support. You are continuing to display an attitude of ignoring what other people said or did (e.g. the OCAC source had been added, so no one is afraid of it), and we have no interest in entertaining such behaviour. Get support for your edit, or don't make any more such edit. Hzh (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You keep calling it a "consensus," but let’s be honest, it was just you and one other person agreeing. That’s not a real community-wide agreement. Acting like it’s settled just because a couple of editors said so is misleading.

And telling me “get support or don’t edit”? That’s not a discussion, that’s a demand. Wikipedia doesn’t work by silencing people or giving them orders. If you’re confident in your view, you should welcome more input, not try to shut down different opinions.

Let’s go back to the real issue: the OCAC source is official and valid. The only reason it keeps getting questioned is because some editors don’t like the number. That’s not how neutrality works. If we include other estimates without questioning their methods, then OCAC should be treated the same or we question all of them equally. Pick one standard and apply it fairly.

You can repeat “consensus” as much as you want, but the problem hasn’t been solved and pretending it has doesn’t make it go away. 125.164.4.78 (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is just the kind of behaviour I mentioned. I never mentioned "consensus" apart from asking you to seek consensus, like I never called you "emotional", but you keep insisting that I did. You just make things up which make rational discussion impossible. It matters not a jot. That discussion is over unless someone else wants to join in. Attempting to do further edits like you did in those articles without seeking consensus first will eventually escalate to admin intervention. Nothing else needs to be said. Hzh (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You say “I never mentioned consensus” but you literally said earlier “you have zero support” and “others agreed with each other” to claim that the discussion was settled. That’s implying consensus, even if you didn’t use the word directly. You can’t now act like that never happened just because it's convenient for your argument.

You also say I “make things up,” but everything I’ve said is based on what’s actually written in the thread. If you feel misunderstood, then maybe the way things were phrased earlier wasn’t as clear as you think.

And no rational discussion didn’t become impossible because of disagreement. It became messy because every time someone challenges your point, you avoid the content and jump to warnings and accusations.

Let’s be clear: if this is really about Wikipedia’s content, then let’s talk about the content. Stop dodging behind tone-policing or admin threats. That doesn’t make your argument stronger it just shows you're avoiding the real issue. 125.164.4.78 (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you intended it or not, you have provided many reasons why you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Hzh (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of comments is reflect your attitude, not mine. Instead of responding to my argument, you shifted the focus away from the topic again.

If you can’t respond to the points about how sources are treated, and why valid data should be discussed fairly, then just say so. But trying to discredit someone personally doesn’t prove you’re right, it only shows that you’ve run out of real arguments.

Wikipedia is built on contributions, not gatekeeping. If you don’t like my edits, you can explain why with facts and sources, not with vague remarks or dismissive comments. 125.164.4.78 (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Malaysian Chinese, you may be blocked from editing. Hzh (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify that I’m not disrupting Wikipedia, even no intention at all. I’m just contributing valid content based on reliable sources.

What I added to the Malaysian Chinese article was supported by the most recent data that clearly ranks Indonesian Chinese and Thai Chinese communities above Malaysia in global size. This is not “disruption,” it’s called factual correction based on most recent sources, which is in line with Wikipedia’s content policy.

If you disagree with the ranking or source, the appropriate way is to discuss the content, not blame others of disruption. Repeatedly labeling good-faith edits as “disruptive” simply because you don’t agree with the source doesn’t help anyone and creates a hostile environment.

Let’s stay focused on the article content and the quality of sources, not on making threats or personal assumptions about editors. 125.164.4.78 (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have no support for your edits, but you still continue to do the same thing over and over again, and that is disruptive. As has already mentioned, you should get support before you make any more such edits. Hzh (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying I have "no support", but you can't responded to the points I made in previous discussions and you have lost to my arguments, which were backed by valid sources. Just because other editors haven’t jumped in doesn’t mean my edits are wrong. This is not a popularity contest.

If there’s something wrong with the content I added, explain it with facts, not by repeating the same claim that I have “no support.” The strength of an edit should come from its sources, not from how many people agree with it'.

Repeating the same accusations doesn’t help anyone move forward. 125.164.4.78 (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Chinese Americans. Hzh (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated accusations of “vandalism” are inappropriate and misleading. I added content supported by reliable, cited sources that is not vandalism by any definition under Wikipedia policy.

What I added to the Chinese Americans article came from reliable, cited sources. If you think something is wrong with the content, then explain it, don’t just throw around big words like “vandalism” without clear reason.

I’ve been editing based on facts and sources. Just because you disagree with a number doesn’t make it wrong, and it’s not a reason to remove it repeatedly without proper talk page discussion.

Also, you keep warning me about blocks, but you’re the one who keeps reverting without consensus. If this keeps happening, I won’t hesitate to bring it up at ANI so admins can take a fair look at what’s going on.

Let’s focus on content, not threats. 125.164.4.78 (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It had been discussed, and you had no zero support to use that source as the official figure. What was given in the article is already the compromise and the most neutral, but you want to use your source as the official one, which is unreasonable since the Taiwanese have no way of counting the Chinese population in Indonesia accurately. The way forward has been given multiple times - involve the community in the talk page, for example, start a Request for Comment to see if there is wider support for using that source as the official population figure for Chinese Indonesians. You can also start a dispute resolution discussion if you think it is reasonable to use that source as the official one. You should not make any further edit without first obtaining support. If you reject the option, and continue making the same edits over and over again without wider support for them, then admin intervention may be the only option left. Hzh (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You said the OCAC source is "unreasonable" because “Taiwan has no way of counting the Chinese population in Indonesia accurately.” That’s your assumptions, and you misses one big point.

Many other sources used in articles about Chinese communities in other countries, like Thailand also don’t explain exactly how they got their numbers. There’s no detailed census from the Thai government about Chinese ethnicity either, yet those estimates are still used without any issue. So if you're going to reject OCAC only because your unreasonable basis, then to be fair, you should reject those other sources too. Otherwise, it’s just double standards.

I’ve never said OCAC must replace all other data. I said it should be shown clearly as a most recent figures, just like other external diaspora numbers. That’s not unreasonable, it’s consistent.

If we’re talking about fairness and neutrality, then all valid sources should be shown, not just the ones that match what you personally believe. 149.113.38.182 (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You keep denying OCAC by saying isn't reliable, but you're ignoring the fact that many demographers and statisticians around the world have actually used OCAC data as a reference for overseas chinese demographics. It's not just some random number from the internet, it's published by an official government agency that focuses on overseas Chinese affairs. You may dislike the number, but that doesn’t make it invalid.

Also, if OCAC is rejected just because it doesn’t publish a detailed methodology, then other similar estimates, like those used for Thai Chinese should be treated the same way. Otherwise, it’s just picking and choosing based on personal bias, which goes against the whole point of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is supposed to be built on contributions, not guarded by a few people who think only their view matters. We include sourced content, not gatekeep it. That’s how the platform grows and stays balanced. 149.113.38.182 (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OCAC did in fact give explanation for their Thailand numbers - [1] it suggests that up to 2003 the numbers were estimated using data from National Statistical Office Thailand. Again, as with the numbers from Malaysia, Indonesian numbers were similar to Thai in 2000 (or lower by other estimates), but the Indonesian number had grown to around 2 million more than Thai by 2023. Their Indonesian numbers don't appear to be based on anything official, unlike the Malaysian and Thai ones. Other people also give similar estimates for Thailand, but the Indonesian numbers are off by a lot.

There is little point in continuing this discussion, because you are just ignoring other people's explanation and a reasonable compromise, and making up things other people said. You simply have to get support for your edit, it's as simple as that. Hzh (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood the point of I raised earlier.

The issue isn’t whether OCAC gave some explanation about Thailand, it’s how that figure (9.3 million-10 million) is being used in Wikipedia and what kind of source it really is. The source used in the article — this link — doesn't come from Thailand’s National Statistical Office (NSO), nor does it cite official Thai census data.

In fact, Thailand never include ethnicity categories in its modern census, due to high assimilation. So when others estimate 9+ million Chinese in Thailand (around 14% of the population), that’s still an external estimate, not an official number from the Thai government. That means Thailand and Indonesia are being held to different standards, even though both OCAC numbers come from the same kind of estimate.

You say Indonesian figures are “off by a lot,” but then accept Thailand's OCAC-based numbers without the same check, even though Thailand doesn't release official ethnic data anymore. That’s a double standard.

If we're going to treat the OCAC figure for Thailand as valid and worth citing, then the OCAC figure for Indonesia deserves the same respect. That’s the only fair and neutral way forward. 149.113.38.182 (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That one for Thailand stated the percentage as around 11%, similar to what OCAC used for its calculation (11.3%). However, OCAC cannot be using percentage for Indonesia for their calculation, since the percentage of Chinese has increased in Indonesia by an extraordinary amount by their figures. We simply have no idea how they get that Indonesian figure. It makes no difference to you if it's 9 million or 7 million (since Thailand will be second whichever number you use if you use the 11 million figure for Indonesia), so why are you arguing as if it makes any difference? Go ahead and argue about the number for Thailand in that talk page if you want to, what we have discussed is the number for Indonesia, and you have no support for your edit there, and that is what matters. You haven't said anything that is relevant to your edit, so that is the end of discussion as far as I am concerned, and I will not entertain any further of your attempt at distraction. Hzh (talk) 10:32, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe OCAC's data for Thailand (11.3%) is accepted because it aligns with general expectations, then the same standard should apply to Indonesia. You can’t selectively accept OCAC’s data when it matches your assumptions (like for Thailand or Others), but reject it when it challenges them, that’s a double standard, not critical analysis.

OCAC has been used as a source across multiple entries, including Overseas Chinese communities. So if you're calling their Indonesian figure "dubious," you need to apply the same skepticism elsewhere. But that hasn’t happened. You’re asking for exact methodology only when it doesn’t suit your view.

More importantly, multiple scholars (including Leo Suryadinata) have estimated similar or even higher numbers for Chinese Indonesians when considering mixed ancestry and underreporting due to assimilation and fear. So OCAC's figure isn't some outlier; it’s in line with academic discourse.

Rejecting it without a consistent standard weakens the credibility of the editing process and it raises the question: is this really about methodology, or just discomfort with the result?

Last, you’ve said many times that you wanted to end this discussion, but you keep coming back just to push your opinion and act like you control who gets to edit. That’s not discussion, that’s gatekeeping. If you really believe in fair editing, then let the sources speak for themselves and let others contribute without being shut down. 125.164.4.78 (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Hzh (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You accusing me of edit warring, but you’ve actually did edit warring by reverting edits, even when the information is backed by reliable sources. Don't try to twist the facts. That is not collaboration, that’s gatekeeping.

Just because you disagree with a source doesn’t make the edit disruptive. The OCAC figures I added are used by scholars and public references worldwide, and they are clearly cited. You can't deleting them completely without fair reason, This is not how balanced editing works. Also removing them completely while claiming others are being disruptive is misleading.

Also, you’ve said many time before that you’re stepping back, yet here you are again struggling to gatekeeping and silence others. If you truly believe in consensus, you should welcome me broader input, not threaten blocks just because the source doesn’t match your opinion. 125.164.4.78 (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Chinese Americans. Remsense 🌈 论 17:39, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Hzh (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for Intentionally and disruptively editing while logged out. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]