User talk:EvanCarroll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

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 Image:Signature icon.png 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)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

[edit] Noticeboard comment

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)

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)


[edit] WikiProject Houston

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


[edit] {{unreferenced}}

{{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)

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

[edit] WikiProject Houston

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)

[edit] Planeshift

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


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

Dogru144 20:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism of Controversies of Rudy Giuliani

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)

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)
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)
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)

[edit] Kingwood High School

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)

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)

[edit] Warning to 76.183.171.127

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)

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

[edit] IMDB

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] SSP

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)

[edit] Mike Huckabee Merge Proposal

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

[edit] Blanking of Giuliani Partners connection with Abdullah Bin Khalid Al-Thani

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Your user page

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)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Adp.gif

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)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Adp.gif

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. βcommand 21:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] HAPPY HOLIDAYS

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

[edit] The Unbookables

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)

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)

[edit]

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)

[edit] Thanks

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)

[edit] Ping (video games) article

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)

[edit] Out Campaign

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)

[edit] Wikibooks/Windows Add-Ons

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)

  • 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)

[edit] David Huckabee

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)