The sentence you're looking for is "I wish you were in all my dreams." The verb "exist" is normally used about reality, not something imaginary.

..

You can say these are a man's wallets but men don't have more than one wallet in the United States. (Or better to day, it's very rare that a man has more than one wallet, given that a wallet is where someone keeps documents like a driver's license and credit cards, and therefore more than one is not necessary. In the United States, wallets are not fashion pieces that one changes from day to say.) So if a man had multiple wallets your sentence would be correct, but that's an unusual situation and therefore it sounds odd.

"Breaking it down" means to take something complicated and reduce it to a number of simple parts. Charley is joking with his mom, poking fun at her because she approaches the situation in a way that is overly analytic for a romantic relationship. She concludes that an attractive man that is still single is most likely someone who runs after women and won't commit to a relationship. In other words, she breaks down her observation about this man into a number of conclusions that account for what she's seeing but are not necessarily true. Most likely, she is protecting herself from rejection rather than allowing the chance of a real relationship (her words more or less indicate that). Charley uses the progressive because he's talking about something his mother is doing as if it is happening at that moment (even though it happened immediately before he said that). It's normal in English to use the progressive to talk about something someone has done in the very immediate past, though this is a very colloquial and informal way of talking.

He's kind of discreet. / He's a bit secretive >> If you intend to imply that someone has a negative quality, you would mention that specifically. Saying "He's kind of discreet" doesn't necessarily imply he's a bit secretive. They're not polar opposites. "A bit secretive" isn't a character quality; it's a behavior. So normally you would say, "He's acting a bit secretive." Discretion, on the other hand, could be a character quality, but when you say "kind of" it's hard to know what you mean without more context. A better way to say this is, "He's usually discreet." I'm getting annoyed by your attitude. / I'm getting uncomfortable by your attitude. >> Again, these don't necessarily express the same idea. The second sentence should read, by the way, "I'm uncomfortable with your attitude," and it doesn't have to imply that you're annoyed. A closer parallel to the first sentence would be, "I'm bothered by your attitude." But again, this doesn't necessarily imply that you're annoyed either. It could mean (for example) that you're disgusted or disappointed. So, no, you can't use these sentences interchangeably; they aren't necessarily parallel to one another.

The first sentence is convoluted. You aren't lying if you don't say something. The second sentence is fine. In the second series of sentences, both are possible but the first option is awkward. You would normally put "while watching a football game" as a modifier to "he won't move." Meaning, you need to put the final clause in front of "in case of fire" : "He won't move while watching a football game, even in case of fire." The second sentence is correct; changing "in case of" to "if there is" allows the clauses to be reversed.

1. Yes, this sentence is correct. 2. If you are using "interpret" as a verb, you say "in" not "into." You translate something in written form into another language, but you interpret something that is said in a language. Not "into". So the sentence should read, "John, please interpret this text in English." 3. Yes, this sentence is correct. 4. As I mentioned -- translate uses "into" -- it implies a change from one language in written form to another. Interpret uses "in" -- you are understanding in one language and speaking in another.

Both sentences are correct. The second sentence is fine if the intention is to refer to an action in the past.