This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dia^. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
According to the logs, neither your username or the IP you've given has been blocked. Did the block message contain reference to being autoblocked as it had been recently used by another editor? Is so who was it? --pgk(talk)12:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Pasta
Hello, I edited the pasta entry but my contribution was reverted and I was told it was unhelpful. I would like to explain why it was necessary.
Pasta is described as a type of noodle. This is correct in common US English usage but not in the more strict UK usage of the word noodle.
[1][2]
Wikipedia I believe has to take this into account and find a neutral way of saying 'food stuff'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabhach (talk • contribs) 21:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Tzeli Hadjidimitriou
Hello. I edited Tzeli Hadjidimitriou rather brusquely, though I think fairly, before I saw a question of yours subsequently moved here. I then answered it (and commented on an earlier answer), but you may well have missed this answer. Please take a look. Meanwhile, I'll activate footnotes in that article and provide a sample for you. -- Hoary10:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
No - not really normal. More than likely, someone has either stripped the page of mention of her sexuality (and the cats) OR no-one's bothered to add the info, a ref, and the cats. I've run in to a lot of that on the above-mentioned list. Feel free to add away! And when you have a good ref, add her to the list of LGBT people, too. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)18:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Dia^, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Note that on Casa Marazaau (cheese with maggots), I undid your edit to the see-also section. I also removed all the other commentary. Most see-also's that I've seen are a list of topics with no 'justification', so it seemed odd to have on that page. Thanks, WLU (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Reply on my talk page, edits to cheese page. Note that in general, telling an editor that they don't know anything about the topic they are editing (even if correct) isn't very civil. Not enough to merit an official response, but enough to vaporize just about any neutral or positive regard they may have for you. WLU (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. 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 ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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 (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
how I hate have to talk to stupid machines! I do sing my comments, only is doesn't work properly and I have already posted at the Help Desk. --Dia^ 06:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.
On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.
For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Almond, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Nadiatalent (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
_____
Thanks for you welcome message, but if you would have stop just few seconds and actually READ what is written, before doing reverts and give warnings links and rights, you had noticed that:
I work on Wikipedia since March 2006 with almost 1000 edits and an almost empty talkpage. In other words my work has been good enough that almost no one felt compelled to complain about it.
Secondly you'd noticed that I was already 'officially' welcome in 2008.
Third you reverted my revert in World population because, in your opinion, I should have not removed an unsourced and quite absurd contribution from an anonymous user but tag it, but than you found perfectly ok to revert my contribution in almond as vandalism (!!) when I actually removed a sentence with absolute no sense AND I explain the reason for doing so in the summary of my edit. Why didn't you just tag my contribution as unsourced as you, in 'World population', said I'm supposed to do? Is there a standard for me and another one for you? It seems to me just a little bit too presumptuous.
To be clearer, this statement "The fruits of Prunus dulcis are predominately sweet but every tree produce few bitter almonds." is nonsense, in total violation of the principles of genetics. Nadiatalent (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
And exactly to which 'principles of genetics' are you referring?
because strangely enough here, here, here and here all mention the presence (and fix the maximum amount tolerated) of bitter almonds among sweet almonds.
I was about to apologize for hurting your feelings by using the vandalism message, but now you have turned this into an editing war. I'll appeal for someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants to adjudicate.
The genetic principle is that genotype determines phenotype. Okay, so this nonsense occurs elsewhere on the Web, but that doesn't make it true. What you did looks very like vandalism. You removed:
There are two forms of the plant, one (often with white flowers) producing sweet almonds, and the other (often with pink flowers) producing bitter almonds. The kernel of the former contains a fixed oil and emulsion. As late as the early 20th century, the oil was used internally in medicine, with the stipulation that it must not be adulterated with that of the bitter almond; it remains fairly popular in alternative medicine, particularly as a carrier oil in aromatherapy, but has fallen out of prescription among doctors[citation needed].
It needs citations. Both sweet and bitter almonds contain the oil. Emulsion should be removed. However, the statement that it doesn't make sense isn't justified.
It is true that even sweet almonds produce a small amount of cyanide, but that is in each of the almonds, not individual bitter ones. The first site that you list looks as if it derives from mis-writing, confusing the amount of cyanide with individual seeds (possibly mis-writing in some source that the journalist used, not necessarily their own goof-up). The second one has a clear conflict of interest so information is suspect, and I don't see the statement that all trees produce a few bitter almonds in the third and fourth sites that you give, they seem to be all about how to process almonds, as far as I can see. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes? You were 'about' to apologise?! When, next year?
It seems that you find too complicated to actually read the links provided, so I copy here the definition of what is vandalism in Wikipedia:
Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting patent nonsense into a page.
moreover:
Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.
As you should have noticed I provided in my last edit to 'Almond' 4 different sources that confirm what I wrote. Two of the sources are from the INC: The INC is the International source for information on nuts and dried fruits for: Health, Nutrition, Food Safety, Statistics, Government Standards and Government regulations regarding trade barriers and trade quality standards. INC brings you the first word in the state of the industry worldwide.
I guess they should known a bit about almonds.
And about edit war: If I had spent my time in Wikipedia looking for edit wars, my talk page would be very, very long. --Dia^ (talk) 11:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Genetics are not all in life. ;0) Just found on the University of Graz website Sweet almonds are, by centuries of cultivation and breeding, very low in amygdalin and, thus, harmless; however, even sweet almond trees sometimes yield single bitter almonds (up to 1% of total crop), and some sweet almond cultivars still contain traces of bitter almond aroma.http://www.uni-graz.at/~katzer/engl/Prun_dul.html . It seems that not only my edit was not vandalism but that you were totally wrong to revert my contribution. --Dia^ (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Prunus species commonly produce cyanogenic glycosides as antifeedants. The seeds are disseminated by frugivores, and consequently the fleshy part of the fruit lacks (I assume) these compounds. The actual seed is contained with a hard kernel, and this commonly does contain cyanogenic glycosides. Sweet almonds are a "mutant" which has been selected for lack of toxicity by humans. I would have expected that Nadiatalent is correct about sweet almond trees not producing bitter kernels, but finding an unambiguous statement in a reliable source doesn't appear to be trivially available. A mutation which breaks an enzyme involved in the production of the cyanogenic glycosides is conceivable, but would leave the foliage open to herbivore attack. An alternative would be a mutation which down-regulates the enzyme in the kernels. That latter would seem to be the case; crossing experiments have indicated that the mutation is dominant, with plants bearing bitter fruits appearing among the progeny of crosses between sweet almonds. (A misunderstanding of this might be at the root of the disagreement.) It appears that what is actually downregulated is import of amygdalin into the kernel.
However, environmental factors could plausibly affect the amount of cyanogenic glycosides in the kernel, and these factors could vary between fruits on a single plant; however I wouldn't expect the degree of variation to be so great as to result in sweet almond trees bearing bitter almond fruit. (I think we can safely infer that the trait is under the control of the maternal genotype, not of the seed genotype; as otherwise 1/4 of the fruits would be bitter, and toxicity would be a problem.) Lavateraguy (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
automatic insertion of extraneous formatting
FYI: Apparently there is some software on your system that is inserting junk into articles. See the tags in the history at Machu Picchu. No need for a reply, just letting you know. Johnuniq (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2011 (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 Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
I see you reinstated the edit on lung cancer that I removed. You took the trouble of taking soundings at the reliable sources noticeboard, and I agree that the European Respiratory Society and its journals are good sources. However, as I pointed out in the summary, the journal article that was quoted has a few problems. For one thing, it is a single study, looking at a previously untested modality, and its sensitivity (71%) falls well short of what one would expect for a screening test. On a separate note, we avoid citing single studies (which may have undiscovered methodological issues, contradict other studies etc.) in favour of secondary sources (textbooks, review articles). The background is outlined in WP:MEDRS (sources for medical articles). I hope this is clear. Please let me know if you have any further questions. JFW | T@lk15:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. On topics such as lung cancer, on which 100s of papers are published every year, we have to be extremely selective which studies are notable. Of course the idea that "dogs sniff out cancer" is extremely newsworthy, but taking a slightly longer view (as an encyclopedia would), this is really not yet ready for prime time in the diagnostic sense. JFW | T@lk15:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I have again removed the sentence in the space debris article. Please do not add it back. The statement was clearly POV, and that's a no-no for the wiki. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but what you said on my talk page is simply not true, and largely the opposite of the way the wikipedia works. We are not supposed to "close quote" sources unless you are making a direct quote. Furthermore, there is no need, want, or suggestion that every statement in any source must be copied. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Your wish is my command, the page you requested can be found here. As to moving to the talk page, I couldn't agree more, feel free to open the topic and drop me a note when it's ready. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Now, because I told you that that was in the article almost verbatim, and pointed out, that the positive opinion about the project expressed in the quoted article are not from the inventor but from an external commentator, you started to say, that actually the problem was the too close quotation.
I find the information important, especially the second part of the sentence because introduce an important issue in space debris removal that has not been treated in the article and that are the political issues.--Dia^ (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad you caught the humour. It's often difficult for it to come across in text format - unless you're Christopher Moore, obviously! Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Roomano, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.
'Specifically, please don't remove valid references, as you did at Roomano. The Google Books link clearly shows the page of interest, for the 2004 edition. Your edit summary ("well, I just checked on Amazon and there "Roomano" is not mentioned at all in the given reference.") is not correct - the link on the Google books page to the Amazon page for the 2004 edition shows no content, period. If you were looking at the 1999 edition Amazon page, with "Look Inside", but no mention of Roomano, well, that's just the wrong edition. Lexein (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
And that's hardly any vandalism. Just for you here what is NOT vandalism on Wikipedia. Moreover, that the 160 pages paperback edition from 2004 is a expanded/revisited edition of the 224 pages hardcover from 1999 is just you supposition/hope (in order not to be utterly wrong and not just wrong as you are at the moment). --Dia^ (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Continued vandalism
Do not continue deleting a valid supporting reference for the article. Such a deletion, in the knowledge that it supports even one claim made in the article, is, in fact, vandalism. If you continue to do this, you can be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Lexein (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dia^. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
