User talk:Dwilso/Archive 3

Hummer
No need to apologize. I think the article looks good after your last edit! Thanks for the link and information. :) 71.107.129.42 (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit to Florida
I reverted one of the edits you made to the Florida article (specifically, the GDP one) because you replaced referenced material with unreferenced data (using the edit summary as your reference doesn't really work, as it will be nearly impossible to find later on). In the future, when referencing data, please put the reference in the article, not the edit summary. Just give a brief description of what you're doing in the edit summary. Thanks. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I reverted your edits to Florida for the same reasons given above. Please stop doing what you are doing. This is near vandalism when you do not respond to well-intentioned comments of other editors. Student7 (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

San Jose
San Jose is not a suburb. It is bigger than San Francisco. Heegoop, 8 March 2008 (UTC) If there is a formatting problem with some of it (and I am unable, so far, to see the same problem you indicate, regarding inability to read some text portions because of table length), that needs to be repaired rather than deleting data. If you would care to let me know your operating system and browser, I will look into it further.

I shall now go to work putting some of the information back. Tim Ross  (talk)  12:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Your further data deletions
I observe, sir, that you are continuing to delete sourced data from state articles, this time by repeating your California deletions. Your support statement, in that instance, is "going back to the 1960's is irrelavant, and also, these election results don't include other parties or (third party candidates). Therefore, Im updating the results as we speak."

You are incorrect. I don't know what your understanding of relevancy may be, but state election data are highly relevant to many purposes, and valuable to many users. The fact that third party data are not included may be regretted by some, and you would certainly be welcome to add such information, but that is, absolutely, inadequate reason to delete other data.

Because you offer no plausible reason for your actions, I recomend you use talk pages first. Tim Ross  (talk)  20:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Citations in Edit Summary
You have been citing sources in your California edits, but the citations really need to go in the article itself rather than the edit summary. See WP:CITE for more information on adding citations to articles. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

For the third time, please stop replacing sourced material with unsourced data. Putting a URL in the edit summary is not a proper citation. Please read WP:CITE. Thank you. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 09:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Update to Florida
Thank you for updating the GDP figure for Florida; however, you used a list in Wikipedia as a reference, which is not allowed. Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources states that such sources may not be used except under special circumstances (which is not the case here), and specifically notes "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources". There is a reference at the bottom of that page, but it is broken. I went to the Bureau of Economic Analysis website (http://www.bea.gov) and found the information cited.  Horologium  (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. The Evil Spartan (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is not Kobe Bryant's basketball article, it is his biographical article. The piece you are objecting to happened and it is also documented father down in the article.  It is just a summary of the info in the article.  The lede of the article is supposed to be a summary of the entire article.  Without that summary it is not a summary.  Also Wikipedia is not censored because someone does not like what is in the article or they don't want their children to see it.  This paragraph is written in a nuetral point of view.  It meets all the requirements to stay and should stay.  If you do not believe it should stay, try discussing it on the article talk page with valid policy or guideline arguments why it should not be there.  If you just continue reverting you will probably be blocked for violating the three revert rule.  You have already reverted 3 times and one more will probably get you a 24 hour block.  I am willing to discuss the section if you want Jons63 (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Kobe Bryant
How important a part of his life story is that now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:14, 10 March 2008 (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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should 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 (talk) 08:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Abbreviating state election data
Hi, Dwilso, and welcome to Wikipedia.

I notice that you have recently been deleting some of the data from various states' pages: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, and perhaps others. You give several reasons: "I can't read the last paragraph because the presidential results interupt it. So I cut it short. 1980 - Present", "1980- 2004 is a more current trend", "Deleted election results in 1960's decided to move to current trends."

Please stop doing that.

All evidence is that this is valid and correctly sourced information, which is highly appropriate for an encylopedia. Certainly many people are interested in such material. I shall now go to work putting some of the information back. Tim Ross  (talk)  12:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ford and Jaguar
First, Ford is selling both Jaguar and Land Rover, but you only mentioned Jag. Second, the article you referenced only talks about why they SHOUDL sell them, not that they have. In reality they have NOT sold either one yet, e.g.: http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080307/FREE/552207794/1023/rss01&rssfeed=rss01 When the time comes I hope you'll use the right reference and remove Land Rover as well as Jaguar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davert (talk • contribs) 18:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Really, I think either Ford or Tata WILL tell us. Right now Tata has just announced that they won't buy anything until they get price guarantees on needed parts from Ford. Very smart of them not to be too trusting! Davert (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

List of countries by the number of billionaires
Hi, with reference to your recent edit on the mentioned page, I would like to seek a clarification as to why my edit was reverted. I'm quite sure the information currently on the page is inaccurate. For example, India I'm sure has only 53 billionaires. I don't know how the figure of 74 was arrived at. Moreover even if you tabulate all the figures, they don't make up the total of 198 as shown on the table. I hope you can do a fact check and get back to me. Have a nice day! S3000 ☎  18:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Those numbers were also mentioned on BBC news, I saw it some time ago! It said India features 13 new billionaires in the forbes list, in addition to the 40 last year. I'm very sure that India has only 53 billionaires. Anyway, before I go ahead editing, could you please furnish me with a source showing those figures are correct? Of course it has to be referenced from Forbes as the list is based on Forbes. I'm not too sure about American billionaire figures, but I'm quite sure about Asian ones. Thanks. S3000  ☎  10:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually it is clearly stated in the article you sent as what I mentioned earlier. India has only 53 billionaires. Thats what Forbes reported too! This source you sent me says: Asians accounted for 211 people on the list, up from 160 last year, with India counting 53, up from 36 in 2007, and China, which had just 20 billionaires last year, now boasting 42. And China too has only 42, not 48 as stated in the article! Moreover, I don't quite get your argument on the currency aspect. Firstly it is already stated in the article page that The following is a list of known U.S. dollar billionaires in 2008 as of March 2008. Secondly, we have to compare all the billionaires globally to a single standard. For example, does it mean an Indonesian would be a billionaire (to global standards) with just 1.0 billion Rupiah (which is around US$110,000)? Perhaps the most you could buy in Indonesia with that is a new BMW 5 Series. My point is we have to have a fair basis of comparison, using just 1 type of currency. Only then will there be a basis of comparison. Thanks. S3000  ☎  12:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Could I revert those edits back to the previous version? Are you cleared of your doubts now? S3000 ☎  14:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Lolz, was that said with sarcasm or something? How am I to get a list of millionaires? There would be millions worldwide! S3000  ☎  09:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection Template
I noticed you placed onto Globalization. Placing that template on a page does not protect the article at all. The only way to protect an article is to have admin privileges. If you feel an article needs to be protected because of vandalism please report the page to Requests for page protection. I removed the template you added. Jons63 (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting history
You will quickly get a Wikipedia-wide reputation for complete lack of credibility -- a reputation just ahead of that of a vandal -- if you alter the comments of other users on your talk page, as you have been doing consistently including several earlier today. Just a word in your ear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.118.95 (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect, I am free to edit my "talk page", as I want,  please read the WP:TALK policy, and make sure you read the 8th bullet point from the bottom. Thank you Dwilso (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Guess again, Sunshine. Edits like this and this affirmatively change the meaning of someone else's comments, and aren't looked on favorably under any interpretation of the policy. But hey, you know what? It's up to you. I quit editing at this place a couple of years ago in part because of just such folks as you. Just one more debit to the credibility account of Wikipedia editors at large.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.245.84.187 (talk) 05:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My apoligies, I will be reverting my edits back again.!! ok. D w il s o  talk 06:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks for the barnstar :) WhisperToMe (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks as well also. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of German Cars
A tag has been placed on German Cars requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Xdenizen (talk) 06:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstars
I was just wondering how many Barnstars you are going to give yourself? It is very bad form to make it appear with your edits that someone else said something. I wonder what User:Jamesontai, User:Husond and User:Moeron would think if they came to your userpage and saw that it says that they gave you barnstars but that edits adding them to your userpage was made by User:Dwilso.

It is also hard to believe that your user page has been vandalised 46 times since every edit so far to your user page has been made by User:Dwilso along with most of the edits to your talk page. You are working towards losing a lot of credibility here. (I notice someone else also left a message about you doing things that will hurt your credibility on here) You are free to do what you want, but this is just a friendly notice of how your edits might be interpreted. 68.163.57.108 (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you like it if someone started adding things that had your signature after it that you did not say?


 * I don't understand why your hostile toward me, let us establish Peace and harmony together!! and remember that I mean you no "harm" whatsoever.  thank you! Dwilso (talk) 05:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologize if I have came across as hostile. I was just trying to explain how your edits might be perceived by others.  Once someone loses credibility on wikipedia is very hard to gain it back.  Your initial efforts here on this page and on your user page could hurt your credibility if noticed by the wider community.  Even though I assume good faith and believe your edits were not with malicious intent, others might not agree with me.  I came to this page to see who I was working with on the List of Japanese Cars and noticed the things I pointed out.  Again I apologize if I came across as hostile, it was not my intent.  71.242.86.2 (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of British cars
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  Acroterion  (talk)  19:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of British Cars
I have nominated British Cars, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/British Cars. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Paste (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wild Cities
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Wild Cities, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Wild Cities. Gr1st (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)