User talk:Diehl2044

May 2021
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Columbus SC. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Iago Qnsi (User talk:IagoQnsi) 22:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

November 2021
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at New York Red Bulls. oknazevad (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

April 2024
Hello, I'm Zaathras. I noticed that you recently removed content from Trumpism without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Zaathras (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Football infobox appearance and goal data
Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I just wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions were not quite right. When updating statistics within the infobox of a footballer, please be aware that appearance and goal data should account for domestic league competition only for each club.

If you have any questions about this, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Seriously?
@Diehl2044

Why would you describe the suspect as having committed the crime? Haven't you heard of innocent until proven guilty? No evidence has been presented. The other case you mentioned has had a trial. No matter what you think about the result of said trial, that article is post-conviction. Please refrain from such action moving forward. From my observation, often little mercy is given in circumstances such as these. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oh, piss off. Everyone who is familiar with the situation, and that includes millions upon millions of Americans, are well aware of the ESTABLISHED fact that the suspect is undocumented. Nmerous Law Enforcement and federal agencies are beyond assured of this reality as well. Hop off, apoligizer. Diehl2044 (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Diehl2044
 * Don't insult or attack other editors, either. However, rather than being insulted, I am quite amused by your suggestion that I am defending the individual. Incidentally, the proper legal term is "illegal alien," and nonsensical euphemisms like "undocumented migrant" are improper. I don't know what "apologizer" means, but if you meant that I am an "apologist" for illegal immigration, or "triggered" by it, that makes me laugh.
 * Now, don't be obtuse. You edited the page to say that the victim was killed by an illegal alien. I did in fact read your edit summary. Just because you said that he hasn't been convicted, doesn't negate that you are assuming his guilt by saying that he did do it. Who else would you be referring to? He is innocent of the murder charge until proven guilty. He was already described as an illegal alien just below the top of the page.
 * I was completely polite to you and trying to prevent your edit from receiving you a warning or worse. I don't have the authority to punish editors, but frequently those who do are quick and severe with it. I was trying to help you and you refused it. Based on your statements below, you obviously don't know that much about Wikipedia and that's fine, everyone has to learn. Why don't you try being polite and contributing? You could certainly improve it. Thank you,
 * TanRabbitry (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't care anymore. It is what it is. I'm not embarrassed by anything. I didn't reply because I'm not wasting anymore time over silly stuff like this.
 * I used Undocumented Migrant because I knew that if I used Illegal Alien, I'd have some left-winger going after me for my terminology. So I went with something that their side prefers which is the word "Undocumented". Diehl2044 (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Diehl2044
 * I'm sorry to hear that. Wikipedia can't improve if the editors decide they'd rather give up, than try to work within existing guidelines. I hope that you change your mind. You could choose to help improve it, instead of quitting. On the second point, if you are objectively correct about something, don't cede the ground, instead present evidence and try to persuade the person opposing you. In this case, any non-citizen in the U.S. is known by the legal term "alien." If they entered illegally, "illegal" precedes that. Facts can't be argued against. They can only be ignored or shouted down. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC) TanRabbitry (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 👍 Diehl2044 (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, and for your information, I said in the 'additional comments' tab that the suspect had not yet been convicted in a court of law. If you had bothered to read my edit page, you would know that. Don't go changing my edits because you're triggered by the facts of the matter. Your edit, funny enough, was given a negative rating, whereas mine received a positive one. So do us both a favor, and mind your own business. Diehl2044 (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Diehl2044 Please see WP:BLPCRIME. Also, your tone here is inappropriate and not civil. Please see Civility. Gottagotospace (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm good. My tone is what it is because of the other guy's actions and attitude. Diehl2044 (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, your edit got a negative score. Just like the first person. Just thought you should know. Diehl2044 (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if you believe someone is acting uncivil toward you, you are still expected to act civil in return. That is how Wikipedia works. Personal attacks are not allowed. You can disagree with someone without using combative language like that.
 * And what are these "negative scores" you are referring to? I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you please explain? Gottagotospace (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Everytime you make an edit on Wiki, and you go to your contributions tab, it shows you a green/red number beneath the edit. This indicates whether the edit is good or bad. Diehl2044 (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That is not what the green/red numbers mean. Those numbers indicate the change in the size of the page in bytes, which in most cases, is how many characters were added or removed. You can read more about that here: Added or removed characters. Your edit added characters, so that's why that number was positive. It has nothing to do with the edit being good or bad. Gottagotospace (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Diehl2044
 * I would imagine you are a bit embarrassed about the "negative score" thing. You could take the moment of self-reflection and choose to be more polite and open to suggestions. Looking at a couple examples from your edit history, you have certainly improved articles by removing biased language. That is very rare and commendable and I genuinely hope you continue to do so. Assuming guilt of a particular individual before a conviction is not. If you read the article and "talk page" history (maybe you did, I don't know) you would have seen it was my suggestion to use the more accurate word "murder," instead of "killing." It also isn't wise to assume motivations or beliefs of others without evidence. It often makes you look silly. Assuming I am a supporter of immigration crime, because I believe in innocence before guilt is proved is an example. Once again, it also made me laugh, not necessarily at you, just at the very idea.
 * On a serious note, I am not joking about the punishments of administrators. They have little patience for infractions. You could listen to me and continue to improve Wikipedia and remove bias, or you could get banned and Wikipedia loses another good editor and gets a little worse. Please choose wisely. Thank you,
 * TanRabbitry (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024
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: 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. Cullen328 (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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.