User talk:Diego

My messaging preferences
--
 * If you leave a message on this page, I will respond on this page so please watch it.
 * If I leave a message on your page, please post any responses on your page. Thanks.

Comment
Hello. -- Diego 03:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Diego, i'm not the most skilled wikipedia user, and it seems you know a bit more about wikipedia than i do, so i figured i'd tell you that on the page for Levelland, Texas[] under the 'education' sub- section some one put useless information. i.e. they put, "The jv team really needs Fb Ketran Dawn " after the listing of the Levelland High school mascot. It should probably be removed since it is unimportant Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slippycup (talk • contribs) 22:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Information
Hi, I'm a student from Mexico and I'm looking for information about your univertsity Masters program, aynthing can be useful. Thanks User:Hector_Magaña —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.139.203.9 (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk pages
Hi, I just wanted to let you know I was confused by the fact that you duplicated the entire three paragraphs you wrote at Talk:Crisis pregnancy center, onto my talk page. Could you please not do that anymore? It splits the discussion into two discussions where there really only needs to be one. In case you thought I would miss what you said, not to fear, I already am watching Talk:Crisis pregnancy center and will respond there. Thank you. Photouploaded 13:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Rorschach
Hi Diego, I agree 100% with your sentiments about the test. But I would like to see the issue resolved. I had no problem seeing the image by clicking the link, and the entire set from the link further down the page. People who, like me, want to see the blots, can just do what I did. Let those who have their reasons (whatever you and I might think of those reasons) have the image hidden and the warning. That way the edit war can come to an end. I think, lets just leave it. We might have a consensus if we leave the page as it is. And technically, the page should just describe the test, and the controversy (these are facts), and leave the interpretation to the reader. What d'ya reckon? MarkAnthonyBoyle 03:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I was responding to the RFC, so I was a bit confused regarding the current state of the page, but hiding the picture sounds like a good compromise. — DIEGO  talk 03:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Response
Thanks for your comments! I have left a response for you on my talk page. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon
An article that you have been involved in editing, Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. Drumpler 03:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Rorschach references
They're in my office. I'll scan them tomorrow or over the weekend and send them out. Happy editing. Ward3001 01:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Diego, This is really off topic, but I've been watching your discussion with Ward and I wondered if you might have some tips for me. You used the word Voodoo. I'm doing a Masters on Magic Thinking, and I'm wondering if you have any pointers on that topic? Maybe you could email me? I'd be grateful for any help. MarkAnthonyBoyle 22:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 16:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Creationism
I'm writing about your edit comment, undoing my change. My change, if you will remember was to change the statement that "creationism is the religious belief that ... was created by a deity" to "belief that ... was created by a deity". I am not denying that creationism is a religious belief; how could I? I think that any belief in a deity is obviously religious, and we have no need to say it twice. Shorter is better than longer. Just trying to improve the English. 199.71.183.2 17:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Quick sloppy edit without reading the entire diff. You are right. It was redundant and you improved the clarity of the statement. Please accept my apology. — DIEGO  talk 17:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your apology. It's much appreciated. I'd be obliged if you would undo your own edit yourself, since I've already been warned for 'edit warring'; I'd like to make it clear that this isn't just me re-doing my edit again. Thanks. 199.71.183.2 17:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll do it right now. — DIEGO  talk 17:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, as per WP:WEASEL, I disagree. I reverted again 'cause I didn't realize there was a discussion, but I won't revert again until this is resolved. Though the existence of criticism should obviously be mentioned, it really doesn't belong in the lead, even if cited. Gscshoyru 22:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Gscshoyru, I'm a little confused. Your recent reversion of my edit doesn't seem to have anything to do with the discussion above. Does it? The above comments were in reference to a phrase that redundantly mentioned "religious" and "deity" in the same sentence. Your edit, on the other hand, seemed to involve a statement asserting that young earth creationism had been largely discredited. It was tagged, then promptly deleted. I agree that the wording could be clearer to avoid weasel words, but again, does anyone actually contest that statement (from a scientific perspective, not a theological perspective)? Is there really anyone who could say with a straight face "the majority of scientists actually think that young earth creationism is a valid interpretation of the evidence" or "modern cosmological and biological theories, which are supported by an overwhelming majority of scientists, are totally compatible with young earth creationism"? No. Because modern scientific theories have discredited young earth creationism as a valid explanation for the evidence. Belief in YEC requires faith. I don't think mentioning that it is overwhelmingly discredited by scientific evidence is overly critical to put in the lead, as long as it is clear who or what has discredited it as a viable evidence-based theory. Creationists often seem to reject science outright and turn to faith as the sole rationale for their beliefs, so how is the view of the majority of scientists overly critical? If creationists are right about science, then scientific criticisms of creationism would actually be silly and meaningless. YEC, as a theory explaining the origins of the cosmos and life on earth, is in direct conflict with the evidence (and the people who study that evidence). That may or may not be important to some people. How about presenting both sides in a factual way that does not give undue weight to any single opinion and let readers decide for themselves? Isn't that what NPOV is all about? Either way, I think we can move this discussion to the article talk page, since it involves the article. Thanks. —  DIEGO  talk 00:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, so it has nothing to do with this discussion -- I'm an idiot. In any case, though it is obviously true that it is widely criticized, the lead in an article is about what the thing is -- not really about what anyone else thinks about it. At least, that's my opinion. I could be wrong. The criticism of it can come in a later paragraph, but the lead sets the tone for the article, and saying what other people think of it is a bit much too soon. I wholeheartedly agree with the criticisms, but they aren't integral to why creationism is notable, so it doesn't belong in the lead -- I think. I could be misunderstanding policy, tell me if I am. Gscshoyru 00:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Gscshoyru, I think it all depends on how you look at creationism. If you look at it as a theory regarding the origin of the universe and life on earth, then it is certainly notable (even in the lead) that it is a fringe theory not supported by the overwhelming scientific evidence (see Flat Earth). If it were being discussed in the article solely from a theological perspective, I suppose that the scientific opinion of it might not be appropriate for the lead. Then again, I think most readers would either be aware that creationism and scientific evidence are at odds, or would quickly find out by reading further into the article. It is definitely a gray area, and I don't feel strongly enough about my position to revert any more of your edits if you don't think the criticism belongs in the lead.


 * By the way, thanks for moving User:Harry Mudd's comments from my user page. I appreciate it. Happy editing. — DIEGO  talk 16:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved from user page
Diego, maybe you should look at the quotes at the top of your page and think about what they mean.


 * An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation"

No matter how many times you claim that your edits do not violate wiki reliability, it won't make it true. Links to forums are not wiki verifiable, and just because you weant them does not change that fact.

As for the three edit rule, you should stop breaking it. You are making bad faith edits. They are beyond doubt bad faith. And they will be removed, count on that. If you keep reinserting in bad faith, then you are causing trouble, and you risk being banned. Harry Mudd 16:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not made bad faith edits. You know that you have no support for your opinion. You have not achieved consensus on the talk page. Stop removing material from the article to prove your WP:POINT. It is as simple as that. You have assumed bad faith, been uncivil, and engaged in personal attacks rather than arguing your position on its merits. Please stop. Please do not post anything on my user page or my talk page again. If you wish to respond to a template that I have placed on your talk page, please respond there. Keep the debate at Talk:James Randi. Thank you. — DIEGO  talk 16:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Good faith edits
As shown here, your edit summaries often use the phrase "good faith edits", but sometimes they are obviously not good faith edits. Why do you use that phrase? I have also seen others do it and am wondering. -- Fyslee / talk 06:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Good question. It is because I use Twinkle, which is much easier than using the undo function on the article's edit history (Twinkle allows you to rollback all recent changes made by a particular editor, rather than just the most recent edit). Twinkle is supposed to give you three options when rolling back changes: 1) AGF rollback 2) Neutral rollback 3)Vandalism rollback. Sometimes, due to a glitch in the script (I assume), the neutral option is not shown and I have to choose between vandalism and AGF. Choosing vandalism does not allow me to write my own edit summary, and if it edit wasn't clear vandalism then the only other option is AGF. Also, unless someone is clearly showing bad faith with their edits, it can never hurt to assume that they were actually trying to improve the article (no matter how bizarre or seemingly POV the edit was -- a lot of new user simply don't understand what NPOV is all about). In reference to the specific edit you mentioned, it turns out that User:Ombudsman was acting in good faith according to the consensus on the talk page (the only thing that possibly crossed a line was his use of "nonsensical" to describe the information he removed. It was obviously not nonsensical) I hope this helps. Thanks. — DIEGO  talk 15:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Reporting at WP:AIV
Thank you for making a report on Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. --Ginkgo100talk 21:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In this case I think the level of vandalism warranted an immediate block.

Article move
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that recently you carried out a copy and paste page move. Please do not move articles by copying and pasting them because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Requested moves. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Kesac 19:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I don't know what I was thinking. I put a history merge tamplate on the article. Hopefully that will do the trick — DIEGO  talk 19:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent comment at Richard Dawkins talk page
Thank you for your well-written comment at Talk:Richard Dawkins. Not only did you give a thorough summary of prior discussions, but you presented it in a well-reasoned and approachable fashion--and in a calm fashion also. (I've certainly seen debates at other talk pages where the comments just fanned the flames; I don't see where yours would do that at all.) Again, my compliments on a talk page comment that says the things I'd like to have said but was worded three times better than I could have! —C.Fred (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks — DIEGO  talk 16:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Input request
I am beginning to understand the comment you left the other day on my user page about Photouploaded. Unable to achieve the desired result at the CPC article, Photouploaded has decided to move on to the categorization system itself, nominating Category:Pro-life movement and Category:Pro-choice movement for deletion. I believe that this is an unreasonable response to the discussion on Talk:Crisis pregnancy pregnancy. It might benefit the situation if someone familiar with the user would weigh in, because I'm at a loss as to how to approach some of the recent comments, which veer more toward the contributor than the content. Would you consider looking into the CfD discussion if you have the time? It would be greatly appreciated. -Severa ( !!! ) 01:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not really surprised by his actions. He seems to get hostile very quickly over seemingly minor issues and is often not very willing to compromise. I'll take a look at the CfD discussion. Thanks for letting me know. — DIEGO  talk 19:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Diego! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. βcommand 05:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Libel
There was nothing libelous in what was included in the Mnuez commentary on Watson. In fact, after having a look at your own pages, I'm quite sure that you'll agree that there's nothing libelous in the Mnuez commentary. Please read it again. - mnuez
 * No it is not libelous. It was an automated template and the BLP/libel message was the closest to explaining why the link was not appropriate. Basically, your addition (a blog) to the external links section of James Watson was a)not from a reliable source, b) was against WP:LINKS guidelines, and c) was supporting contentious information that is not appropriate for a biographical article under WP:BLP guidelines. As commentary from a non-notable source (you), it is not appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia article, or as an external link. Thanks. — DIEGO  talk 20:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Word of God
Deleted, salted. Thanks for letting me know, I kinda figured that would happen. --Core desat 06:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I also warned RucasHost, as he has a history of contentious editing over subjects such as this. --Core desat 06:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba 01:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

James Watson
I would appreciate your co-operation with regards to improving the James Watson article, and the stubborn refusal of Landerman to allow edits of the topic until he see's fit. Thankyou.--Koncorde (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Survey request
Hi,

I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, BCeagle0312 (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A note re: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review
Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, –xenotalk 14:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Further to the above, we would appreciate if you could briefly take the time to place yourself below one of the suggested statements here. If none of these statements represents your current position, please compose your own or simply sign "Not applicable" under "Other quick clarifications". Likewise sign as N/A if you do not want to participate further in this debate. If you choose not to respond then you will likely not be counted with respect to further consensus-determining efforts. –xenotalk 14:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of DigiTech Bad Monkey
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is DigiTech Bad Monkey. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/DigiTech Bad Monkey. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

New Rational Skepticism WikiProject member asking for look at Theosophy entry
Since you are an active participant in the Rational Skepticism WikiProject, would you mind looking over the Wikipedia entry on Theosophy to see if you find any concerns?

I've been ordered to fix the page so that it accords with my understanding of the NPOV policy. I'm happy to do that but I have a lot of work at my job. Now I've been told that I must make the changes by April 30th or the NPOV tag will be removed. I simply can't learn how to use Wikipedia as a newcomer, become familiar with all the sources, and make the edits if I must do it all by April 30th.

Would you look over the Theosophy page? Also, can you recommend anything? Thanks much,Factseducado (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update
Hey Diego. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Saving Mr. Banks". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 02:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Your User page makes no sense!
You say your an anti-abortion and a pro-choice. That is soooooorta impossible. An anti-abortion is someone against abortions and a pro-choice is someone that says the pregnant woman should be the one to choose if she is getting an abortion or not. They are sorta opposites in this very long debate.

--ScientifiC (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

a heads-up
I took the liberty of adding a  __NOINDEX__  directive to User:Diego/List of Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of possessing Casio watches.

The directive is supposed to hide userspace files, including draft articles, or former articles userified for revision, from search engines. Without the directive search engines still find them, and, for deleted articles, those who favoored deletion can argue the user space article's findability via search engine is an end-run around its deletion. Some people add a userspace draft or a userspace notes directive to their userspace files, it adds a  __NOINDEX__ , and lets other contributors know the plans for the file (and that is won't be searched by search engines.

For what it is worth, I was troubled by the discussion at Articles for deletion/List of Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of possessing Casio watches for several reasons. First the nominator mentioned me by name, but they didn't bother to inform me of this, which is a definite lapse from collegiality.

You made excellent points, and, if I had been aware of the discussion I would have worked with you to address the delete party's named concerns.

If you decide you don't want the material to be a subpage under User:Diego, could you move it to User:Geo Swan/List_of_Guantanamo_Bay_detainees_accused_of_possessing_Casio_watches, and leave me a heads-up, on my talk page, telling me you have done so? I may re-use some of this material, and I would like to keep track of the revision history, so I can properly attribute everyone's work.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to let you know -- Missing Wikipedians
You have been mentioned at Missing Wikipedians. Ottawahitech (talk) 09:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Ain't nobody missing, here! — DIEGO  talk 21:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NollScandalCover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:NollScandalCover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)