User talk:Dia^

Welcome to my talk page! Please, if you are thinking to write me about one of my edits in an article you don't agree about, do please write you opinion on the article's talk page and just leave a short notice here. I normally explain the reasons of my edits in the edit summary (for small edits) but sometime I'm not half as clear as I'd like to be. So sorry in advance if I created any misunderstanding.

As a matter of principle I don't do vandalism. So if you don't like any of my edits, please try to bear in mind that I try to do my best but, as any other person on this planet, I'm not perfect and I do mistakes.

Raw Veganism

 * I have an objection to your reinserting some dodgy claims made by someone else in the raw veganism section which I deleted. First of all, the fact that the original statements came from a Scientific American article does not validate the statement per se - after all, there are plenty of journals which make mistakes or even publish false data etc. In the case of the relevant statements, the claim that cooking makes (by implication ALL) foods more digestible is easily disproven when one actually reads the literature on heat-created toxins in cooked foods plus studies showing that many foods, such as raw meats etc., are made LESS digestible after being cooked:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_foodism#Potential_harmful_effects_of_cooked_foods_and_cooking


 * The only thing that is likely correct is the claim that cooking makes vegetables more digestible, but then it is irresponsible, indeed fraudulent, for Scientific American to suggest that all foods are made more digestible. Then there is this claim:- "the evidence for health benefits of a raw vegan diet is purely anecdotal". I mean, the raw foodism page cites a few studies showing benefits for those on a raw vegan diet, so that claim is an outright falsehood, plus further studies further down the raw veganism page also show some health benefits for a raw vegan diet. Then the above link I gave with its multiple scientific data showing that cooked food is, usually,more harmful than raw food, also shows that the following claim("There is also no body of scientific evidence to support the claims that raw food is healthier than cooked food") is also dead wrong, to put it very mildly. I will add some more stuff re this, altering the statements to show the exact opposite, but will add numerous refs to counter the nonsense peddled by Scientific American. But the point is that no source is above reproach; just because it comes from Scientific American or the New York Times etc. does not make it valid.  Loki0115 (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've actually asked to comment my edits on the talkpage of the article, so I'll copy this discussion there. I don't have an agenda and if you can bring reliable sources that support your POV, you are welcome to insert it alongside the results of the study/studies published on Scientific America. As I wrote in the edit summary, you can't remove sourced information just because in your opinion is not correct. I'd advise you to read here, WP:INDEPENDENT, and here.--Dia^ (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

ELN notice
There is a discussion at External_links/Noticeboard which involves you. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit notice
Hello, The template you see when you edit my talk page is an edit notice. Create a sub-page of your talk page at User talk:Dia^/Editnotice and place a Editnotice box on it. This is the format:

has a list pf preformatted templates you can also use. To look at my edit notice, go to User talk:Jerem43/Editnotice. Hope this helps. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 14:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

helpme
helpme I'm stuck! I have been trying to inform others via Wikipedia of the research I have done for almost a decade. I have written a book and I am wondering why any comments I insert keep getting deleted?

Thanks for your help... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.88.74 (talk • contribs)
 * For future reference, when you post to any registered user's talk page they get a conspicuous orange banner informing them anywhere they are on Wikipedia, the next time they visit, that they have new messages. The banner persists until the person visits their talk page. The helpme template is for placement on ones own talk page, to call users who monitor the category the template places them into, to visit and answer a help request. You thus never use it when you are asking a specific other person a question on their talk page, as you did here. In any event. answering your question would be much easier if you gave some context, like pointing to the diffs of the edits that were removed, or providing the name of the articles and what you added that was removed. Generally, I am wondering if you understand that Wikipedia is a tertiary source, only properly covering information that the wider world has recognized and published content about in reliable sources, and that it is never properly the place to announce new and original things that are not yet already recognized out in the world. I suggest you carefully read one of our core content policies: no original research. See also verifiability, identifying reliable sources and WP:FRINGE. Obviously, with a more tailored question, a more tailored answer could be provided.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Dia^. You have new messages at fuhghettaboutit's talk page. --22:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"Best selling" in Diageo
I notice that you removed several "best selling" adjectives in the Diageo article. To me, that phrase does not indicate a lack of objectivity. It only indicates that a brand has the highest sales volume in its category. That is an objective status – something is either the best-selling brand, or it isn't. That's not POV adjective like "best tasting". But at the moment I'm not in the mood for getting into an edit war with you about it. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the good explanation that you provided on my talk page. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring
See edit User User:Klegein and User:Dia^ appear to be involved in a content dispute. The Revision history of Spokesperson verges on being an WP:Edit War in which case both editors may be blocked. I do not see either of these editors engaging in meaningful discussion on any related talk page. As Klegein has very few edits I would remind Dia^ to review WP:BITE. Posting on both talk pages. Jeepday (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that's is really incredible. The user decided to change "African American" with "black". Now, please don't tell me that new user are not aware that define an African American "black" is an insult.


 * When the editor changed first all "spokesperson" and "spokeswoman" in "spokesman" I advised him, on his talkpage to have a look to the manual of stile. The editor in question decided to ignore my suggestion and the following day replaced all "spokesperson"  and "spokeswoman" with  "spokesman" to the point to break the link to the "simple English" article.


 * Seeing that a message on his talkpage didn't work and thinking that having to wad through the all MoS I asked him in the summary "(Undid revision 456047502 by Klegein (talk) please, read the talk page and here Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Gender-neutral_language)" with a nice simple active link, so he didn't have to bother to search for it. He chose ignore that too.


 * And now you are warning me for edit warring???
 * Because he is a "new user"? He is registered since 2008 and his almost only contribution to Wikipedia has been remove "spokesperson" and "spokeswoman" from the spokesperson article and almost every of its other contributions has been deleted by other editors. The article is called "Spokesperson", in the talkpage there is the result of a poll that obviously the editor in question decided to ignore, so there was no point for me to write there as well. Even someone that hat never seen Wikipedia in his life would think that if the article is called "spokesperson" maybe is not a good idea to remove the word "spokesperson" from the article. Right?


 * I'm sorry, is really this way to deal with issues that make people decide to leave Wikipedia. Just choose the easiest way out for admin. If it's sensible or even logic doesn't count. --Dia^ (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome-to-Wikipedia Template
Take a look at the template, no need to add your name anymore (done automatically), hopefully you like it better. Magister Scienta talk  (2 November 2011) 

Welcome messages
Hey there! Thanks for spending time welcoming new editors. I've noticed that you have placed generic welcome messages on the talk pages of editors that you recognize as students. The Ambassador program actually presents students with specialized welcome messages that provide links to pages vital to the course. Nothing wrong with your messages, you just got to them prior to the course officially registering with the USEP. Just wanted to give you this heads up that I'll be replacing previous welcome messages with the USEP message on various pages. If you have questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 04:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Silverpoint, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Bruce Weber (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mukoyōshi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leonardo da Vinci's personal life, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salai (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)