User talk:Diego Moya/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Virtual Desktop article changes deleted ?

Why you have deleted my changes on Virtual Desktop article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_desktop

How can I insert VirtualDesktop free open source program http://virtualdesktop.codeplex.com in the article.

How VirtualDesktop is different from other programs listed in the article, example from OpenSuise ?

IGProgram —Preceding unsigned comment added by IGProgram (talk • contribs) 14:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

New PSO introduction.

Hi Diego,

I have expanded the PSO introduction. You are probably right that it is better with a more elaborate explanation and I am sorry for the dispute we have had. It has taken up a lot of my time and it could perhaps have been avoided if we had spoken directly to each other much sooner.

Please see if you are happy with the introduction now and if there are any issues you still feel need clarifying let me know and I will add a 'scientifically correct yet layman version' of an explanation. I feel it is important to be precise and correct because incorrect 'facts' are very damaging to the reader's understanding.

If you are happy with this then please mark the dispute as resolved.

I am now going to update some of the other pages I've edited with a more elaborate introduction as well.

(Perhaps we are both a little hard-headed?)

Cheers,

Optimering (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

re: Particle swarm optimization, external links.

I left a reply at my talk page. Cheers, —Ruud 09:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Diego Moya, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Diego Moya/Tablet computer. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

User interface

I conformed the text of the user itnerface article to the points taht were made in the two magazine articles you cited. The two articles made the points quite eloquently - that users found the Word 2007 intervface Like "being hit with a bat" and induced "frustration and anger." 148.106.4.6 (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's why in a Wikipedia article you should mention that "users interviewed by the authors of two articles" found the word 2007 hard to use. Not "all users of Word 2007", mind you. Diego Moya (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The articles you cited give you the data, now do the math. How many users of Word? 50 million? Average learning curve time - 10-20 hours? Average cost per hour for those classes of users - $50-100 per hour? Plus 35% loss of productivity for the biggest users even after learning curve? It's your data, the conclusion of "billions" of dollars in costs is inescapable.

Even the very article that you cite says that benefit accrues to "average users," the ones who use it casually, a point you dropped in your edit. If you want to be fair, then make clear that changes version-to-version matter most to the most experienced users, and less to less-experienced users.

Also, you've gone off topic - the topic is consistency, not the merits of the ribbon interface. Your stuff belongs in a footnote, if it's relevant at all.

The fact of the matter is that users hate change. Experienced users hate this change especially. The ribbon is a dumbed-down interface that probably does work for once-in-a-while users, but it fights against advanced users who are trying to get useful work done. Some get to the point of saying "not so bad, I got used to it," but the number of experienced, advanced users who make their living on MS Word or Excel and say "2007 is great" -- is it as high as 5%?

Boundlessly (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You hate the ribbon, you made your point. Feel better now? The merits of the ribbon interface are relevant to illustrate the very next sentence (that you added - or IP User:148.106.4.6, I still don't know if that's you), that "Consistency is not the end-all and be-all of user interface design" and "a violation of consistency principles can provide sufficiently clear advantages that a wise and careful user interface designer may make such tradeoffs.". Your personal dislike of the ribbon does not give you a right to extrapolate from it to the generality of Office users, like you're doing with your edits. We have protocols in place to handle the inclusion of controversial subjects like this, you have to stick to them. Diego Moya (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Read before you edit. One thing you added was already there, you made it redundant. Also don't wander off topic - the topic is consistency. You are welcome of course to discuss other aspects of user interfaces, but don't confuse the issue by discussing them here.

When I try a case, I need to present evidence for facts. But I as the lawyer (not sworn in as a witness) am allowed to multiply numbers that come in as evidence (especially if its the adversary party that was the proponent of that evidence). A judge doesn't need expert testimony to do the math, the judge is permitted to exercise his basic knowledge of arithmetic (called "judicial notice") to multiply out uncontested numbers. That's not research, that's simply following where the research led. I'm using that standard to distinguish "original research."

You found the article that did the survey that found that experienced users experience 35% loss of productivity. Word-intensive lawyers and Excel-intensive bankers bill in the $400-800/hr range. There are at least 100,000 such lawyers and bankers. They spend 50% of their time in Office. 2000 to 2500 hrs/yr. Multiply it out - $10 billion/yr minimum, just for these intensive users.

Boundlessly (talk) 03:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

And that multiplication is precisely what you can't do - by using the unsourced assumption that all lawyers are bound to that 35% loss of productivity (since the survey only applies to the people who answered it), you are creating original research and inventing facts. There are no judges at Wikipedia, only reporters. In a place where anybody can come and revert your previous edit, you don't make decisions like a judge but more like a jury. You have to convince your peers that your edits have merit, and that's why we follow guidelines to ease the arguments. Everybody knows that online surveys are a terrible source for evidence. Not only by Wikipedia standards but by basic statistics; selection bias make their result strongly opinionated. In common terms and at this particular case, it means that only people who hated the Office Ribbon had the incentive to answer the survey. I'm glad you renounced to reintroduce the silly "billions of dollars in costs" sentence that you based on that napkin maths ;-) Diego Moya (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Software artifact, et al

Hey Diego, thanks for your work with the User (computing) article. I removed the term 'software artifact' thinking that it was another term equivalent to others used previously. You identified that this is not the case, but did not provide a source, and when I went looking for a source, nothing came up on Google (or direct searches on the jargon file or the FOLDOC). The poorly-written Artifact (software development) article does not refer to artifacts in the sense that you stated parenthetically in the User article; I encourage you to find a good source for this or drop the term and only state the constituent meanings that you listed there. Also, by way of encouragement, please verify that wikilinks you include actually go to the most relevant page for the topic; a couple times you had linked a page describing the use of the same term in another field—my method is to just create the links in the page and then use the preview to double-check where they all go before saving (you'll see right away if you find a redlink, but blue links need to be checked for relevance). Cheers! –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 18:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If the wikilinks you refer to are actor and system, they were already in the end-user article from which I merged the content; it's true that I didn't double check where all wikilinks were pointing to. I usually verify my wikilinks in the same way, normally with the Wikipedia popups extension, to check that they work as intended.

'Software artifact' is used throughout the EUD literature with a meaning somewhat related to that in Artifact (software development), but with some nuances that are not captured there. I'm digging through some references to find which ones best describe the exact usage, I'll try to add them soon. Diego Moya (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring

You appear to be involved in an edit war. Please refrain from using multiple reverts as a tactic in resolving disputes.

• If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards a version that represents consensus among editors.
• Alternatively 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.
• Do not edit war even if you think you are right. [1] [2] --Ronz (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, you're the first who did multiple revert today.[3][4] I think the consensus version right now is the one that includes the source with the "Verify credibility" tags. Diego Moya (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed a source that's not reliable, after it's been discussed thoroughly on the article talk page and at WP:RSN. --Ronz (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you removed a source whose reliability was disputed, right after someone asked you to discuss its contents (something which you still haven't done to this date) instead of deleting it. That's disruptive editing in my book; you're the one who broke the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and you have the nerve to tag may talk page with a warning template?Diego Moya (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

IAR

Re: "But given that you don't seem willing to follow the rule to wp:Ignore all rules in order to use the best information available, lets dive into the tiresome due process to distill the information bits that are actually supported by policy." [5]

I'm more than happy to apply IAR properly, and I alluded to it at RSN twice now (20:27, 23 February 2011 and 21:06, 23 February 2011). Sometimes "the best information available" simply isn't good enough. --Ronz (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Please focus on content. Your comments on my talk page are becoming more and more inappropriate, straying further and further from the dispute. --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Unification

Thanks for improving the intro on Unification (computer science)! It sure needed it. I found that article painfully confusing. I hope you keep working on it. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I usually don't edit full-formed mathematical or comp-sci theory articles, but I like to fix the intro section when it's impossible to understand as in this case. Diego Moya (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC on the inclusion of a table comparing SI units and Binary prefixes

Notice: An RFC is being conducted here at Talk:Hard diskdrive#RFC on the use of the IEC prefixes. The debate concerns this table which includes columns comparing SI and Binary prefixes to describe storage capacity. We welcome your input

You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Computing --RaptorHunter (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Syntax Highlighting

Hi - It seems you've arbitrarily decided to remove links to useful pages on the Syntax Highlighting article. Why do you remove some but not all? That seems a bit biased. 60.234.246.33 (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The removal is not arbitrary, and the criterion is right at the edit summary: external links that didn't have a reference. Internal links are not subject to WP:ELNO. Diego Moya (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Unit record equipment

Thanks for the help, looks much better. Now for the important part - getting useful text in the various sections! Some day .... 69.106.237.145 (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Diego Moya/Video games featuring female protagonists

Userified as requested :-). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC).

Re: Category removal

I see no such precedent for female video game characters as you suggest, and the presence of it in the AI category is pretty clearly editor oversight and just needs some cleanup.

The problem here, again, is that the article is about a game, and not a fictional character or element of any sort. You might as well include Doom in the "fictional weapons" category for example, or every Mario series game in the "Male video game characters" category, simply because the lead characters are male. And if we did that for every redirect...well you can imagine the mess a category page would look like for anyone wanting to work on articles if every fictional character with a redirect had such categories. If you want to argue it further I'd suggest bringing it up on the fictional character wikiproject for discussion...I don't see this as a controversial change at all though other than your qualms on the matter.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You're not done your homework. The articles I talk about were listed at the talk page, see Latias and Latios and Koopalings which are not articles about "a female video game character". And the tagged article is not the redirect anymore, is the real article. I'm not suggesting to "every redirect" nor "every article including a male character or a fictional weapon"; I'm tagging THIS article in which a female video-game character is the primary topic. The addition of one single article will not turn the category into a mess, and the reasons for including this article are not the same as with Doom nor Mario so your analogy is invalid. I will take this and the whole Category:Female video game characters to the WikiProject discussion page, as this category has further issues (which I explained at the category talk page[6] but nobody has answered yet). Diego Moya (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Um...both of the examples you just gave are a group article featuring both at least one male and at least one female character, while being on the subject of said characters. And the issue is not "will this one article be a problem": what makes justifying it for this particular article...which to be honest kinda doesn't look too hot on the notability scale to begin with...outweigh any similar article?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

What's significant of this article is that it "features one female character, and the article is on the subject of this character"; this video game and the character are indivisibly linked, because the video game notability is based in the rare fact that the character is the exclusive gameplay element in the video game. So if exceptions can be made on the rule that the article must be about exclusively a single female character, there are good reasons why those exceptions may include Galatea as well. There are not any similar articles, because this characteristic of this video game is unique. Diego Moya (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

List cruft

Please look at WP:LISTCRUFT. it may help the point i'm trying to get across.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

HUGE difference between category and list.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Its more to it than that.....Articles have to be general enough to make articles on it. When you make "Portrayal of Female video game characters" or whatever you call it, there has to be enough coverage about the general topic, not about specific characters. that type of information is best suited for that character article, or section if they don't have an article. If it does get nominated for deletion even with significant number of source, its because the article's coverage didn't live up to the topic.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Semantics of programming languages

Why? —Ruud 18:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Diego: Willing to help with some Wikipedia-related research?

Hi! I'm a first-year PhD student working on a system to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles on scientific topics by providing easier access to relevant scientific publications. I was hoping to speak with some editors who work on scientific articles in order to solicit requirements for my system in order to better satisfy the needs of the Wikipedia community. I noticed that you have been a caretaker for a number of pages on topics concerning programming and interfaces, and I would really appreciate your input. If you are interested, please let me know on my talk page (talk). Thanks! —Preceding undated comment added 23:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC).

Hi Diego - thanks so much for your offer to help! I decided the easiest way to handle this would be to post the questions to my talk page - I would really appreciate your input. Thanks! Sanjaykairam (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

HDD Article

Thanks for your efforts to resolve the controversy. May I have your permission to edit split section version of capacity measurement section to show what I think is an accurate and balanced representation? Tom94022 (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I marked up the draft in your user page. Basically I did two things:

1. I changed the title of the first sub section to "Early Usage" and gave equal number of examples from HDD art and memory art. At its end I noted there are no known examples of discrepant usage prior to 1980. This is true but might be controversial since it tis tough to prove a negative. My source is reading the Timeline of binary prefixes which as a summary should be a reliable source but some might claim it is OR.
2. I changed the title of the second subsection to Differences between the systems of measurements which is think is more factual and less prejudicial. I moved the lawsuit behind the OS paragraph to make the flow more natural; the difference between what most OSes reported and the HDD and Computer System manufacturers specification is what led to the lawsuits so I think it makes better sense to sequence them in that manner. I added the specific Dell example to make the point clear to a non-technical reader.

On the whole I think we are best served by leaving out all the history and just stating how it is in 2011. The history is best left to the Binary prefixes article. You can reply here, I am watching yr page at least for now. Your thoughts? Tom94022 (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Any comment or have u given up on the warring? I still think all the history is TMI and as I look into the binary prefix history now cited I think it is undue or wrong or both. Tom94022 (talk) 07:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not reall interested any more - my main concern was that being too detailed made it a difficult to read section, and that's no longer a concern. I'm OK with some coverage of the history of capacity measurement even if it also includes details about perishable RAM memory, as knowing the origins is helpful to understand the confusion of prefixes. Diego Moya (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent addition to the HDD article, I think it adds sufficient balance and reads well enough. I'm still of the opinion that there is too much historical detail and it all should be removed, but at least this way it is balanced. Tom94022 (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Those are the kind of low-impact, indisputable edits that you should try to achieve for the article. Diego Moya (talk) 06:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I really tried to make my edits indisputable thru careful research. You may recall that originally I wanted to either eliminate or at least footnote the history, which is basically which you have done on for HDD history - memory history is unfortunately still in the main body. Some edits unfortunately can't be low-impact. Tom94022 (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not enough that you find relevant sources. The edits you make to the article must say the same thing than the sources. You can't add opinions; if an assertion is subjective like "There is really no reason for this difference..." then it must be present in the article you're using, and you must quote it to attribute it to the paper authors. Diego Moya (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I happen to believe the "assertion" is a fact, so I didn't think it necessary to quote it. To my knowledge, no one has ever produced a reliable source that gives a reason for stating HDD capacity in binary units. It is my opinion that it was sloppy or lazy programming; however, that is my opinion which I can't but in the article. Tom94022 (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly there does not appear to be any use of binary M in describing HDD capacity until the 1991 Macinosh Finder 7.0. Prior to this HDD capacity was described by GUI systems in binary K. Windows for WG, 3.11 appears to be Microsoft's first transgression. Since HDDs were always described by their manufactures and the system's suppliers using decimal M, it is accurate to say something like,

"The first known incidence of confusion caused by HDD capacity being stated using M in a powers of 1024 sense was the May 13, 1991, release of The Apple Macintosh Finder 7.0."

- or words to that effect. Arguably it is OR, but it's factual and can be supported by reliable sources. If anyone can find an earlier example, it can be cited. Comments? Tom94022 (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

At my talk page, not really. This is the kind of comment you should post to the article's talk page so that people interested can express their opinion. Diego Moya (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

LGBT characters

Sorry to bug you about this, but just so consensus can be reached what're your opinions on removing the LGBT video game characters list without splitting it? Discussion's here. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Message Diego

An article needing attention

Hello Diego. I'm trying to get attention over one article, and I picked up your name from the participants list at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing, I hope this isn't a bother. I've done some light work on Impromptu (programming environment) after an AfD that ended in keep. I think that the subject is notable enough to merit an article, and I wanted to dive into the subject in order to improve the article, but I'm unable to since I don't have OSX, and without some first hand approach I don't feel competent for doing anymore (I haven't been able to find some proper documentation either). The reason I'm approaching you was to see if you'd like to take a look at it, or if you know of someone else that could assist with this. Thank you for your time, and best regards - frankie (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleting others' comments

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Homosexual agenda, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Quigley (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our non-free image criteria. Please note that we take very seriously our criteria on non-free image uploads, and users who repeatedly upload or misuse non-free images may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media Copyright Questions page. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 14:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Δ and Beetstra happen to be right in removing File:FinalFight2Sega.gif and File:FinalFight2.gif as there are no rationales present on the image description pages for their use on List of LGBT characters in video games. There's another problem though; as is, there's no way a rationale can be written. The images were being used decoratively. While Roxy and Poison are mentioned in the article, the images are not tied to the text in any other way. Mere mention of a character is not enough of a reason to include a non-free image of that character. Please see WP:NFCC #8 and also WP:NFLISTS. If you have questions about this, please ask. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Can you stop the edit war please? Look, in neither case of these images are the images discussed. The characters are briefly mentioned but their appearance in these images is not discussed with any discussion, much less secondary sourced discussion (which is required). There is nothing about these images being present that enhances reader understanding such that its absence would be detrimental to that understanding. This is a blatant failure of WP:NFCC #8. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)