User talk:Willydick

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Waterjuice (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Wastful (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Welcome!

Hello, Willydick, 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! Geronimo20 (talk) 10:22, 19 June 2004 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Fishing, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Geronimo20 (talk) 08:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect, the article looks much worse and unencyclopedic this way. Please consider my edits as legit. thanks Willydick (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Willydick. I have added the welcome above which links you to the guidelines for editing Wikipedia. You have resized images, presumably to suit the current settings of your browser. But you cannot assume that most other peopel have their browsers configured exactly as you have. The images were originally set to optimise the display across all possible settings. Other people, apart from yourself, have interfered with them, so they were no longer optimal. Anyway, I agree with you that the image about "Egyptians bringing in fish" is better moved up the page. The rest I have reverted. Your choice of username does not inspire confidence. If you were editing in good faith, then I apologize for the previous message. But to persuade me that you really were editing in good faith, you would have to explain why you deleted, with no discussion, the lead picture on stilt fishermen. --Geronimo20 (talk) 10:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Yes, I am. Glad you like them. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete fair comments[edit]

Do not delete fair comments related to vandalism as you deleted the one above.

Manhattan article[edit]

Not quite sure why you reverted my edit. This was changed quite a while ago, to accurately reflect the sources. Whether or not it is your opinion that Manhattan is or is not a major cultural, media, or financial center of the world, Wikipedia is based on sources, and the cited sources recognize it as such.Basket548 (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ Barry, Dan. " A Nation challenged: in New York; New York Carries On, but Test of Its Grit Has Just Begun", The New York Times, October 11, 2001. Accessed December 22, 2007. "A roaring void has been created in the financial center of the world." Please stop changing. Basket548 (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And not to belabor the point, but why do you feel that it needs changing? The article states that Manhattan is a (not the) major center of worldwide finance, culture, and media. What exactly is wrong with that? Basket548 (talk) 07:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naperville[edit]

Now why did you revert my edit there? Yours was grammatically incorrect and it's all I fixed. I'm not trying to get into a pissing match; I just want Wikipedia to be as accurate and grammatically correct as possible. Basket548 (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

more citations[edit]

You need to read the instuctions for 'morecitations'. These are not errors, but notices that the articles need improvment. Your edits may be considerd vandalism. Hmains (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magnet Ball[edit]

...I was about to ask if you were reading the same article as everyone else... -- role^player 00:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Santa Clara County[edit]

Your recent edits and changes to the Santa Clara County article have been rolled back, due to problems with missing data and grammatical errors. Namely, your "clean-up" edit removed election data from the Government and politics section of the article, and there were also unnecessary graphics resizings and moves. The next edit changed the grammatically correct "Bay area of the state" to "Bay area in the state".

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia articles without stating a good reason why you are removing the content in the edit descriptor, or if there is not enough room there, on the article's associated talk page. Further, I believe the graphics resizing has already been covered up further on this talk page, and the reasons why. Edit Centric (talk) 08:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I was just trying to help out? Willydick (talk) 08:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All well and good, and I made sure that my rollback log reflected the fact that I believed your edits to be "good faith" edits, so that any admin that looks for review can see that info. Just make sure that you are not trying to arbitrarily resize graphics just to fit your browser, most of them are already optimized across browsers. Also, try to ensure that your edits don't inadvertently remove information from an article. What I would suggest is that, if you have questions about some info that you may think is outdated or outmoded, start a new discussion on the article's talk page first, so that it can be reasoned out. Also, if you want to do test edits, make some good use of the sandbox feature for testing. Cheers! Edit Centric (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nostradamical, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD comments[edit]

Please try to be somewhat more constructive in your AfD comments. Random insults about the articles or their authors are not helpful. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT[edit]

Hi Willydick. I have reverted the table you added to LGBT, because the source you cited doesn't actually have anything to do with LGBT populations in the United States. If you mistakenly cited the wrong Census Bureau publication, please feel free to re-add the table with an appropriate citation. Natalie (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another note: in this series of edits, you removed the closing quotation marks from several quotations. There are good edits mixed in so I am not reverting, but please try to be more careful. Natalie (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Punching Mercury[edit]

Why did you nominate Punching Mercury for AfD? It clearly fails notibility and is not a controversial deletion. ttonyb1 (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you are avoiding my question about Punching Mercury. ttonyb1 (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to wikipedia, so please forgive me. Willydick (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to forgive; however, you should probably read WP:Deletion policy to get an idea of the process for deleting articles. Good luck... ttonyb1 (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What if I don't know how to read? Willydick (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punching mercury[edit]

You should know that, if you wish to nominate this page for deletion, you must provide a rationale for why you believe it should be deleted. Please return to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punching mercury and add a rationale for deletion based on our deletion policy. Cheers! Redfarmer (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me, for I have not what I do. Willydick (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem. It was a good call that it needed to be deleted--it was a vanity article created to promote a band. Just be careful you specify a reason when you nominate for deletion. Cheers! Redfarmer (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongful Accusations of Vandalism[edit]

What Wikipedia pages have I "vandalized"? I haven't vandalized a thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.218.12 (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy tags[edit]

I'm not exactly sure what you're attempting to do by tagging articles like Dick Cheney, Hello, Lou Dobbs, and Utah for speedy deletion, but if it continues, this account will be blocked from editing. Such edits are considered disruptive and are completely unacceptable. --auburnpilot talk 05:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you got me quacking in my boots! lol Willydick (talk) 05:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Please do not put speedy tags on articles that obviously do not warrant them. This is considered vandalism. Looking through your history, you have a history of mixing good and bad edits to prolong your life on Wikipedia. Treat this as a final warning; this behavior will not be tolerated, and you will be blocked if you continue to edit problematically. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Killiondude (talk) 05:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've been given plenty of warnings during your time on Wikipedia, and per Biblio's "last warning" above, I've blocked you for your recent vandalism edit. Killiondude (talk) 05:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]