User talk:Mattscards

Welcome!

Hello Mattscards, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Fang Aili ^talk 15:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: IMPERIAL OAKS SUBDIVISION SPRING TEXAS

Hello, I am requesting that you reinstate the article Imperial Oaks Subdivision , Spring Texas deleted Jan. 7. I feel our subdivision is a recognized community in the Houston, Texas area and I do not think I violated any copyright violations. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattscards (talk • contribs)

I've looked at my deletion record and can't find any article by that name. Are you sure I deleted it? I looked at everything for Jan 7 and didn't see anything like this. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fang Aili. The title was Imperial Oaks Subdivision, Spring Texas. It was deleted 03:21, 6 Jan 2007 Fang Aili. My last post that stated it was Jan 7 was incorrect. Thanks, Mattscards

Imperial Oaks Subdivsion, Spring Texas

It was very short, lacking context, and also didn't have much of a claim of notability. I'm going to move its text to a user subpage, and you can work on it there. After you've fleshed it out a little, move it back to article space. Cheers, Fang Aili ^talk 19:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mattscards/Imperial Oaks Subdivsion, Spring Texas

Here it is. Cheers, Fang Aili ^talk 19:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recreated the article at Imperial Oaks, Texas :) WhisperToMe 00:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana Purchase

Hello, I just noticed that a while ago you removed a paragraph from the Louisiana Purchase article about Native Americans. The paragraph had two references backing it up, and it seems to me the information is useful in understanding exactly what was being bought and how the US had to "buy again" the land rights from the Indians. Your edit summary simply said you were removing that bit without giving a reason. So I restored it just now. I'm open to the notion that the text should be deleted if you're willing to make a case. Thanks! Pfly (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Houston

Hello, I undid your edit at Houston today because it was unreferenced. Houston is a featured article and the best way to keep it featured is to provide a reference for all newly added material. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago, New York, etc.

Please do not make significant changes to the lead paragraph of pages, mark them as minor, and fail to provide an edit summary as you did at Chicago and New York! Cheers --Baron Larf 21:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

Your edits to San Jose, California are breaking the ref tagging (creates an error in the "references" section), as well as being technically incorrect. Your edits have been reverted by multiple other parties; please discuss on the article talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see Talk: New York City

They are not current estimates - and the bureau that produces the estimates acknowledges that the numbers are only estimates. They often change the estimates after the fact. The day the US passed 300 million was even "moved back in time" after the date on which it was "celebrated". Rounded figures are more memorable - a figure purportedly exact to the nearest person suggests false precision & is not at all memorable. see Talk:New York City Wikipedia is a co-operative project. Not including edit summaries, reverting 3 other editors without edit summaries, nor giving any reason anywhere except saying you will do what you want because it is "your field" does not indicate co-operativeness. Once you violate WP:3RR you can be blocked from editing. You are not even using correct tense, you are wrecking the citations & leaving behind bare links--JimWae (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on San Jose, California

Your edits continue to break the references within the article, as well the wording of the original version flowing better. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize

No problem at all, it can be difficult at times to track the verious versions of an article. Thanks for your assistance with the Houston article. I responded to your question concerning the Hispanic ranking. I've looked around and found this reference [1] but I would prefer using the US Census as a source. Postoak (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]