User talk:BillVol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, BillVol, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Michelle Bachelet. 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! Rd232 talk 08:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A belated welcome![edit]

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm! Face-smile.svg

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, BillVol. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, GL, for the cookies. I've been reading and trying to edit for a while, but I'm really still a newbie. In fact, I've learned a great deal in just the last two weeks. I know my limitations, as they say, but will always try to follow the rules. Thanks, again!BillVol (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: Luis Alamos[edit]

The reason transfermarkt, the reference I removed, is not reliable is the same reason Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. The site's database is user-edited, meaning it counts as a self-published source. I hope that clarifies things. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing: That Wikipedia itself is not reliable for the exact same reason. To me, this is one of many things Wikipedia I disagree with. There are many self-published websites that are more reliable than many not self-published. There are many newspapers that print stories that are not even edited at all (therefore "user-edited," in a way). If this is a rule, then it is one I don't like.BillVol (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)