User talk:EvanCarroll

Hello EvanCarroll! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing!  Netsnipe  ►  18:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Blocking is intended to prevent harm to the encyclopaedia, but edits from several months ago don't really qualify as any significant threat. If the user gets three warnings within a few days you can report them to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Hope this helps. Tim Vickers 05:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up on that, this user might have a legitimate reason for removing the tags. People sometimes disagree. Reporting them to ANI asking for a ban is not very good faith assuming :). -- lucasbfr talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 10:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in WikiProject Houston, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about the Greater Houston area.

{{Unreferenced}} should be used only on articles that have no sources (references or external links). The {{Refimprove}} template is appropriate for articles with some sources but not enough. {{Unreferencedsect}} , {{Primarysources}}, or {{Citations}} may also work well for your purposes. Thanks--BirgitteSB 17:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, I didn't even know about those templates. EvanCarroll 18:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for becoming a participant! Your expertise in the areas you mentioned will surely benefit the project. Please feel free to discuss anything related to the project at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Houston and add/update the collaboration items at Wikipedia:WikiProject Houston. Also, please add the project banner/article assessment template for every new project-related article you create. The templates are found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Houston/Resources. Thanks again, Postoak 04:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey did you mean to nominate for AfD? You nominated the page for Redirects for Deletion. SpigotMap 04:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For constructive, varied and well-documented edits on Rudy Giuliani

Dogru144 20:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I hope that you agree that the blanking of the article is completely POV. I'd have to research the matter, but I am trying to recall if it was Time WasteR that expunged all of the neg. material from the MA bio page, and shuttled it to this page.

Regardless, it is ironic that some Rudy partisan got all the negative stuff off the site, and onto the Controversies site. Now that the Controversies page has mushroomed, they are upset!! I hope that you share my vigilance to protect said article. Dogru144 23:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite as infused on this subject as you are, I'm not sure a Controversies of... page is ever a good place for non-redundant material. I just don't think that there is anything wrong with a wikipedia run consortium of wikilinks to the MA of those controversies. If someone wants to know why Rudy Giuliani is talked down upon they should be able to find out the reasons for this distaste without knowing all of the supposed good he has done. EvanCarroll 00:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EvanCarroll, since you previously objected to my dismantling of Controversies of Rudy Giuliani, you should know that it is now up for AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies of Rudy Giuliani. Wasted Time R 23:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EvanCarroll, you might be interested in the latest suggestion at the Controversies page. It is proposed: merge into the Mayoralty article. I'd be interested in your take/ vote decision on this. Cheers, Dogru144 (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit: [1]

Kingwood is not its own community. It is a part of Houston that has its own postal address.

All schools in the Houston city limits should be stated as in "Houston, Texas" in the intro.

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it would be wonderful if you took photographs of Kingwood and Kingwood Park and posted them on here! WhisperToMe (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such template as {{uw-bw}}. Please do not use it to replace the warning that I added, {{uw-biog4}}. --Nlu (talk) 08:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the warning, and signed it, you do not have my permission to alter that which I sign... Or remove it. I was looking for {{uw-bv}} not, {{uw-biog4}}. EvanCarroll (talk) 08:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need your permission to remove a nonexistent template. --Nlu (talk) 08:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero to no reason to have two IMDB links in an article. There is a discussion about this extremely pointless part of the infobox over at [2]. As you can see, it was added in to the infobox after almost no consensus whatsoever less than a month ago (which means only a very tiny fraction of infoboxes have this IMDB link included right now, and I'd like that number to be even tinier), and many people want it removed from it, although no one has acted upon that because the template is protected from editing. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could make an argument for removing IMDB links in External Links. I would disagree. You however can't make an argument for removing information from an standardized infobox. We can invoke an admin. But an infobox has a standardized subset of info for the purpose of a presenting a uniformed encyclopedia. You violate that integrity when you rub off your view-points as WP Policy: they are not. If you have want the infobox changed, you need to push towards a consensus or admin action and not remove other peoples work to better fit your preference. FYI, I have no preference as to whether or not IMDB links are in the Infobox, but as it currently stands I would highly prefer you not remove the hard work of others to create a uniform encyclopedia. EvanCarroll (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this argument. The IMDB was only added to the Template:Infobox actor itself less than a month ago (see this edit), after no consensus whatsoever (this was the only request for it to be added). It is thus not part of a "standardized subset of info" because the subset of info is ever-changing (for example, the fields "notable roles" and "height" used to be included for a long time but were deleted a few months ago). There has since been a discussion about it (as I said) over at Template_talk:Infobox_actor#IMDB_link_in_infobox.3F; the very last few posts there point toward removing it from the infobox, but no one has acted upon that yet. Whether the IMDB is included in the actor infobox or not is supposed to be the result of our viewpoints, it's certainly not a set-in-stone fact that it should be. Also, just because a field is included in the infobox template, doesn't mean it has to be used, the infobox also includes "restingplace" and "restingplacecoordinates" (these should perhaps also be removed), which I've not seen used anywhere. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The field is there for a reason, an Infobox is there for a reason: uniformity, and you're breaking it. If you want the Infobox changed, go for it. Create a debate. dispute the addition of IMDB. As it is, the field is there for a reason, and you are not in the right to strip it out when numerous other people opt to utilize it. It isn't an integral feature of the Infobox, granted. But the consistency of the infobox is the sole purpose of the Infobox. It doesn't matter when a feature gets added, the Infobox, should always closely match a filled out modern template of the infobox. Furthermore, you're argument about duplication is total WP:NONSENSE, an infobox is never supposed to be the sole place for information - ie, birth_date, death_date are also supposed to be in LEAD sentence per the WP:STYLE. From the manual of style In theory, the fields in an infobox should be consistent across every article using it. You're violating that consistency without just reason.

The infobox is not supposed to be the sole place for information, I agree; however, an external link is not information in that sense. The uniformity you're talking about doesn't exist because: 1. infobox fields are deleted and created on a regular basis so there has never been the kind of definitive, consistant version that you seem to be implying exists - which leads into 2. not all actor infoboxes across Wikipedia contain the same thing - many list simply the name, birthplace and birthdate; some also have "children" and "parents", "influences" and other variables; some include deleted sections like "height" and "notable roles": at the moment, very very few infobxes contain the IMDB field (go over, say, the entire cast of The Player and see that probably not a single one of the 70 or so actors listed has an IMDB field in their infobox), so, in fact, adding it breaks the consistancy of the majority - if you want to look at it from that point of view. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A protected Infobox with slots for information is safe for inclusion into that implemented infobox, unless noted by the usage-docs on the infobox. If you press issue further I will follow a RfM -- Do not continue to strip infoboxes of adequately entered information -- try to better the Infoboxes through WP:CONSENSUS. Or push for a policy change. The style manual will tell you why the uniformity doesn't exist, but there is no justification to remove uniformity. And to clear up any confusion -- we are trying here to keep Infoboxes on articles in sync with the slots on the current Infobox. The addition of a slot to an Infobox is an improvement, WP:SNOWBALL -- get over it and adapt, or take the right path to oppose it but do not discourage the adoption of a feature based on a personal whim. PS. Infoboxes are often easily parseable data, natural language prose are not, we can style an IMDB link differently, and even have it hide-by-default per the source of the infobox, but it is a much greater task to retrieve the information you are removing or to source it from the another distinct template within the page. Infoboxes can be thought of as a autonomous and distinct profile that just so happens to reside in the same namespace as the article. EvanCarroll 21:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with an IMDB link is that it isn't information, it's a link. So I am not stripping the infoboxes of any information. Furthermore, the person who requested the addition of the IMDB link to the infobox in the first place [3], User:ConradPino, says that this field is "optional" [4]. Anyway, I put in a request with User:Patrick to delete the IMDB field from the infobox template (he was the one who added it at ConradPino's request), based on the apparent consensus to delete it on the template's discussion page All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did not file your SSP case correctly. You made it part of another case. Please resubmit per the directions. You also need to provide informative diffs. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on merging Mike Huckabee controversies into Mike Huckabee here [[5]] Jmegill (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. One editor has opted to delete this from the Giuliani Partners article, saying that it belongs in the Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign, 2008 article. (Abdullah Bin Khalid Al-Thani helped Khalid Sheikh Mohammed flee when the U.S. FBI was pursuing her.) Another editor has blanked the article from the campaign article, on the grounds that it belongs in the Giuliani Partners article. I hope that you can weigh in. Dogru144 (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on my user page. I like keeping conversations in one place, so I've posted my reply there. Cheers! Unschool 05:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. I made a small correction on your user page—what I assumed was an innocent spelling error. But now, looking at the history, I see that it is possible that you intended to use that spelling (though I'm not clear as to why). My apologies, if I stepped over the line. My intentions were benevolent, I assure you. Unschool (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Adp.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Adp.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. β^_command 21:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not acceptable, in a non-threating fashion: your bots utility will be disputed in the immediate future through official channels. A smarter bot, can fix the problem the right way and without tagging images for deletion or removing them from articles. Your bot does not currently suffice an acceptability requirement. Fair use can be determined implicitly from the use and a rational can obviously be automated, you make no such attempt. And no Human would take the action your bot has taken. I cite rules: IGNORE_THE_RULES, and SNOWBALL to back my conclusion your bot must go; it is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. EvanCarroll (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• HAPPY HOLIDAYS And thank you for the post. Shoessss |  Chat  00:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, this is probably not notable. But without a rationale for the prod, I have removed the tag. Please take it to WP:AfD if you want to pursue this further. Pastordavid (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is obvious WP:A, WP:N. It is stupid to remove a prod if you agree, especially if you were able to discern the reason for the prod. You're right ... not notable. EvanCarroll (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Hilton family, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how Category:Hilton family is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on [[Talk:Category:Hilton family]] saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please feel free to use deletion review, but do not continue to repost the article if it is deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions.

Was deleted less than a year ago at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_12#Showbiz_families_-_H. Snocrates 07:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting my tag over at The Reynolds and Reynolds Company. I wasn't sure if there was a tag for articles that read like advertisements and I couldn't find one quickly. Thanks! --Merond e 11:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you claimed you were an expert on that topic, so I'm wondering if you could add info on the following:

1- Is the ping value in ms usually for a both way travel delay? As in, 15 ms going, 15ms coming back = ping of 30? Or is it a 1 way value (and therefore close to the speed of light delay in a best case scenario?)

2- I think other n00bs might not even know why a ping "is", so maybe some expansion on this would help :P See the talk page, some guy didn't know what ping meant still. (I know, kinda, but I'm not sure) Althena (talk) 17:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EvanCarroll. How are you? Thank you for creating the article Out Campaign. Good job! We are trying to promote the article Richard Dawkins to the FA status. You are invited to comtribute. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to create a page on Wikibooks, you should head over to Wikibooks [6], not create it on Wikipedia. It can be confusing, but it are separated (but related) projects. Fram (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right and I know that -- setting the skins to the same has made this confusing.EvanCarroll (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User David in DC has unilaterally censored this page from the American Criminals category. You should restore it and if he starts an edit war (as he is wont to do with his suspected sockpuppet jpk212) you should file an ANI on him. He/they have been causing mischief in an attempt to censor the child molestation prison sentence served by an obscure member of a 60's pop group, Peter Yarrow. John celona (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir: I have a question regarding a user who you have outted as having a strong wp:coi involving his editing of a certain page? Should I speak to you here or is there a better way to contact you? I am a bit discouraged at this point. Thanks65.91.69.113 (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All communication pertaining to WP users should be done on Wikipedia so they are entitled to see what is said. EvanCarroll (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article David Huckabee, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. CorpITGuy (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*My interest in this article is genuine. I do not think David Huckabee is notable. Since a year has passed since the last proposed deletion ended in no consensus, I'd like to see it come up again. I hope you won't take offense. Thanks! CorpITGuy (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will not forward my request to speedy deletion criteria or Articles for Deletion since I believe you are indeed acting in good faith. However, if you want to keep the article, it seems we should improve upon it. I believe he is not notable just because he is mentioned in a newspaper article or a publication. For instance, I have been mentioned in numerous articles in my local newspaper but I am certainly not notable. What do you think? If you disagree, can you help find information that isn't entirely negative? I believe undue weight is being given under WP:UNDUE to the negative aspects. Can you help? Thanks! CorpITGuy (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say if your local newspapers are in themselves notable and reliable than yes. With that said, generally speaking, notability flows, to some degree, within one familial degree of a highly-notable person. You could in theory merge this whole well-researched and properly weighted article (not Wiki's fault the press dwells on the negative) into his dad; but, then it would throw off the weight there, and an equal amount of resistance would reveal itself. A good quantity of highly-notable people have their news-worthy family members on wiki, especially if it speaks to matters they are running on. Keeping this on its own page, permits a statement akin to "Huckabee runs on X, but his own family values have been called into question in regards to his son foobar by the NYT." That might now be properly weighed in the Huckabee article without drawing undue attention to the details of his son's transgressions. I had also had enough information on Huckabee to warrant a spin off article before I began. EvanCarroll (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide a reason for the {{prod}} you added at Outwit (software). Thanks. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the prod because I generally don't like proding for notability. But, it sounds like one big advertisement for something. Half of it is in marketing lingo, the "outwit kernel". "outwith hub", "outwit images" -- no one really cares. It seems like just another OS project that wants to advertise on Wiki. No reputable primary source exists for this, and its popularity is easily challenged. Why should it stay? You have some pretty pictures but I question how much the authors understand about wikipedia -- articles like this are a joke. If you want to teach people about OutWit and use the meta* platform to do so write a wikibook -- you've got some excellent screen shots. Take a look at my profile on wikibooks, I delete perl modules all the time on wikipedia and create wikibooks for them. ;) EvanCarroll (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you; I'm just asking that you provide the reason within the template as is required (as well as an edit summary) to guide others who come to the page and see the prod there. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to reprod then -- I don't see any mention at all of the source code, I just removed the link spam and restructured the screen scraper page -- maybe outwit has a commercial incentive to spam wiki. EvanCarroll (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please review and participate in the discussion to determine if/how Houston neighborhood articles should be merged/redirected to List of Houston neighborhoods. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Earth Quest Adventures requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get a life you lame waste of air. I mean seriously one save and one minutes later your on my ass.. Try helping build the article first. System Lord of the Internets (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Earth Quest Adventures requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of of the warning tags does not remove the issue of incivility. You may want to review the section and remember we are all part of the same community. Also, you may want to be careful when expressing negative opinions that are phased in an uncivil manner as you did in your edit of Dick Morris. My best to you. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Evan! Would you mind fulfilling some photo requests for the Kingwood area, if you have some time? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi, how are you? mikeMdupont (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In July 2009 you added the claim "Partial Indexes have been present in Postgresql since at least version 7.0" to the partial index article, cited from [7]. However, the cited source makes no mention of partial indexes.

PostgreSQL 7.1 documentation states "Partial indices are not currently supported by PostgreSQL, but they were once supported by its predecessor Postgres, and much of the code is still there. We hope to revive support for this feature someday"

So please verify your sources more carefully.

Also, try avoiding statements like "MySQL as of version 5.4 still does not support Partial Indexes" — the word "still" is your personal opinion; Wikipedia should state facts. See WP:NPOV.

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia :) -- intgr [talk] 19:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Sean Wolfington. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Wolfington (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is PlaneShift (video game). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlaneShift (video game). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you're listed as a Wikipedian from Houston. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors from the Houston area, to help with Wikipedia assignments at Texas Southern University. Classes at TSU will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester, and the role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.

Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).

If you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador, or know someone in Houston who might be, please email me or leave a message on my talk page. Thanks!--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. bonadea contributions talk 19:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Basically, that's the reason I deleted it. It was blanked as an attack page and tagged for speedy deletion. I didn't read it; I merely followed procedure and deleted it as a potential attack. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I want to refute that, it isn't an attack page. It is as neutral as you can be when you're writing about a man only known, though known well, for tax evasion schemes. Evan Carroll (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article David Bosset prefix:Wikipedia:Deletion review has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is the wrong namespace for Deletion review. To have an article's deletion reviewed, please go to WP:DELREV and follow the instructions there instead of creating a new article here.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Seegoon (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and restored the article for you. As I pointed out, all I saw was a deletion notice with a courtesy blanking notice. In reviewing your text, I saw nothing that attacked the subject. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re "voting", we're explicitly not a democracy, and AfD is explicitly not a vote :P. Ironholds (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to improve coverage of LGBT-related content on Wikipedia throughout the month of June. On June 21, there will be a multi-national edit-a-thon, if you wish to participate. Here is the project page for Houston: Wikipedia:Meetup/Houston/Wiki Loves Pride 2014. Ways to help? Create or improve LGBT-related articles, host an edit-a-thon at a local coffeeshop, library or other location, or photograph LGBT culture and history in the Houston area. Visit the project page for more information, and if you are interested in contributing, just add your name to the list of supporters or add the results of your work. Thanks for your consideration! --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EvanCarroll. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EvanCarroll. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Huckabee is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Huckabee (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Billhpike (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EvanCarroll. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]