User talk:DraperMan

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the Wickliffe Draper article, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 and later."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question at the "Help Desk". You can also leave a message on my talk page. Will Beback talk 21:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009

I just posted about 500 words and added references then 2 hours later they were gone. If you want me to add footnotes, as I have in the past, just say citation needed and I will comply. By the way the Draper Rockwell deal finally went down on 3/22/1963 for $100 million in Pfd Stock as a new issue and not for $31 million in existing common stock. How the deal went up by $70 million in 20 days is VERY IMPORTANT. Thanks for finding this out. Please check NY Times, 3/22/63 page 61 column 1 to verify these facts from the footnote. I will get the article again from microfiche, scan it and send it to you if you wish, but any library has this stuff.

Yes, please provide the text that you are citing because I checked the NYT archives, including an article published on 3/22/67, and did not see any mention of $100 million. Also, the rest of the paragrah in question is mostly unsourced. Unsourced material may be removed from Wikipedia at any time, but I'll hold off for a few days to allow you to source the material. Will Beback talk 06:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first offer was for $81 million from Indian Head for the 2.45 million public shares of Draper Company and the 250,000 shares of privately held stock at $30 a share times 2.70 million shares to get to $81 million in the article in the NY Times Index then it was changed by Rockwell to outbid Indian Head to one share of a $100 Convertible Pfd stock issue at 4.75% for every 3 shares of Draper Common which was $33.3 per common share or about $83,250,000 dollars for 2.5 million shares and a bit more for 2.7 million shares or $90,000,000. After adjusting for the 15% conversion premium over the price of Rockwell common that would become $103,500,000 which is just over $100 million. The stock was also callable at $104.75 in stages going down to $100.00 after five years which technically added another potential $5,000,000 to its value or $108,000,000. In fact it was called within a few years and is no longer listed. I used to be a stock broker and I think this is a fair way to value the stock at the time of the purchase.

I will post these newspaper stories in PDF format for you to see if this weekend if you cannnot get them from NYTimes.

I found the NYT article that you linked to from the Draper article. Most of the figures you give above are not included in the article. Instead, what you are proposing is original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. If you can find a source that gives specific totals then that'd be fine to include. But we must not create figures based on our own calculations. Further, I don't believe we know how many shares W. Draper held, and the article is about W. Draper, not the Draper Company. Perhaps the best thing would be to leave it that the company was bought by Rockwell-Standard and leave off the financial figures pending a source that discusses it in the context of W. Draper. Will Beback talk 00:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Gerald L. K. Smith has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bmyspace\.com (links: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendid=287859816&blogid=467189995, http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendid=287859816&blogid=467189995 (redirect from http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendid=287859816&blogid=467189995)). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Thank you for your co-operation and your assistance. You can see that this has been a lifelong passion of mine and that I believe very strongly in learning from the past and identifying villains and scoundrels so as not to repeat the past. I actually got Rockwell removed from the DoD approved vendors list with a comparable campaign. They had to sell out to Boeing before the hammer came down on them.

Speculation and sources

Thanks for your work on Wickliffe Draper. He's an interestined subject. However your editing has been problematic. I keep seeing phrases like "...speculation persists as to why..." but without any source showing who is doing the speculating. Every assertion on Wikipedia should be verifiable, so you shoulnd't add comments like that unless there is a reliable source who is making that speculation. Even then it's best to attribute opinions and speculation. For example, "John Smith, author of A Hisotry of the West, speculates that Draper may have..." A second point is that you appear to be adding material to Draper's biography that isn't directly connected to him. Information about Gerald Smith belongs in Smith's biography. For example, you added this webiste as a source: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/winnipeg.htm. I can't find Draper mentioned there anywhere, so whatever we're saying based on it is probably off-topic for that article. I'll try to clean it up, but it'd be better if you followed these principles to begin with. Will Beback talk 22:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

I see that you're adding material without adding sources. Everything on Wikipedia should be verifiable. I'm going to undo some of your recent unsourced additions pending reliable sources. Will Beback talk 01:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please stop adding unsourced information and opinion, such as here: [1]. Wikipedia is not a repository for unsourced conspiracy theories. Will Beback talk 21:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are still adding significant amounts of unsourced information, some of which includes potentially derogatory material or extraordinary claims. I am alerting you that I will remove all such information. In the future, please make sure that every significant edits you make is readily verifiable, per WP:V, one of Wikipedia's core policies. Will Beback talk 00:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your aditions to Robert J. Morris because, once again, there were no real sources for the material. Please make sure that your contributions are verifiable, and that they do not include original conclusions or synthesis. We're just here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Will Beback talk 07:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability II

There were similar problems on Young Americans for Freedom and as such I've reverted your recent changes to the article. Please discuss your proposed additions on Talk:Young Americans for Freedom, and understand that proper sourcing is required for additions to articles. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability III

Once again I'm here because you're adding material, some of it POV, without proper references. You're wasting everyone's time, including your own. I am going to revert the article back to a prior version. Please do not re-add material without clear citations. Will Beback talk 01:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]