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:-
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
{{Editnotice|id = Welcome MalnadachBot! Put a greeting here. This example uses a WP:Magic word to identify the person editing your page. |header = Put your heading here |headerstyle = CSS formatting for the header |text = Put your message here |textstyle = CSS formatting for the text |image = Put your choice of images here }}
{{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?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
Take a look at the template, no need to add your name anymore (done automatically), hopefully you like it better. Magister Scientatalk(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)[reply]
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.
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.
