User talk:EurekaLott

More architectcha

Can we get these photos [1] (two pages)? The site asserts copyright status, but I was told that because of the date that they were taken they are likely to be public domain??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. IANAL, but my understanding of copyright law is that the date of initial publication is more important than when the picture was taken. There's a good chance that the images have entered the public domain, but it's impossible to tell without more information. There's a contact link at the bottom of the page. I suggest sending the library a request for further details. - Eureka Lott 19:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Cleveland flag

Hi...I noticed your comments on Doncram's talk page (not going to get involved with that) and have had a problem that's been bothering me for a while now and feel a Clevelander could help with this. On the municipal flag of Cleveland, what are the two symbols in the upper part of the shield supposed to look like? They are currently indecipherable and resemble something from a Rorschach test. I would like to redraw them more accurately, but cannot find a photo of nor have ever seen a real flag of Cleveland. I'm hoping you'd be able be help in either finding or obtaining such a photo or would know of someone who would. Thanks. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 19:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a good question. The City's code describes the flag as follows (emphasis mine):

The Municipal emblem of the City shall be a banner of the following description and design: the banner shall consist of three vertical stripes, of equal width, in color red, white and blue respectively, the red being nearest the standard and the white in the center. The middle stripe shall bear the American shield with the word "Cleveland," in blue, across its center, and the figures "1796" in red, at its base, encircled by a laurel wreath. The outline of the lower half of the shield shall be in red and of the upper in blue. In the upper left-hand corner of the shield shall stand an anvil, hammer and wheel, and in the upper right-hand corner an anchor, windlass and oars. Under the shield, in black letters, shall be placed the words "Progress and Prosperity."

Flags of the World has a photo, but it's rather small. I'll see what else I can find. - Eureka Lott 19:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You can almost see it. It's fair to say that those symbols have become stylized over time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Stylized, yes, but I doubt it would get that bad. Too bad you couldn't just walk into city hall and ask to see the flag. There would be the most logical source. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 23:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No, never, I live in Pennsylvania. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 03:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The source of the graphic in question simply has a badly converted Illustrator file, probably due to having been scaled down in a different resolution than the original image. The real thing is a lot clearer... and as described, with the symbols of industry and maritime in perfect resolution I can assure you.. sorry to jump into the discussion so late ;) Ryecatcher773 (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No worrys, as I completely forgot about this discussion until now. You are welcome to email the photos. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 14:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sent you an email. I've found that just sending one can act like a self-addressed stamped envelope. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 14:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, the new flag is up, I overwrote the old flag with it. Let me know if it needs to be tweaked. You should consider uploading a couple of your flag photos to Commons, of course you would have to mirror them first. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, removed "All America City" and changed the color of the motto. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Polite request to revert your deletions with respect to my Entireweb and Kartoo entries

In the spirit of openness, for your information I have already made a similar request in relation to deletion of my new article about Entireweb which was deleted by NawlinWiki. See

User_talk:NawlinWiki#Request_to_revert_removal_of_new_article_about_Entireweb_search_engine

As you will see from this related request, there is justification for an article about Entireweb and for inclusion of Entireweb in Wikipedia's list of search engines.

Your removal of Kartoo as a 'duplicate' is more understandable.

However Kartoo is just as much a 'meta' search engine as it is a 'visual' search enginee.

If it can only be included in 1 category it would be difficult to be objective about which classification would be more appropriate, since it is such a unique engine.

I thought it would be a good idea to include it in both categories since several other search engines are included in more than one category.

If you think it should not be in more than one category, perhaps a new combined category should be created e.g. 'visual meta search engines' ?

Thanks for considering this request.

Timdwilliams (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I will leave the decision about whether to undelete the Entireweb article to NawlinWiki, since he made the initial decision. If you disagree with his conclusions, deletion review is an option. In the meantime, I've restored a version of the article in your userspace so that you may continue to improve it.

Regarding Kartoo, I understand your point, but including duplicate entries would greatly bloat the list. Google or Bing could easily be listed many times. I don't think creating a section for a single search engine would be helpful to visitors, either. The best solution, IMO, is to list the site under the section that comes closest to describing it. - Eureka Lott 15:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Actors by series

Template:Actors by series has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Inner-ring suburbs

Hi there. I saw you reverted my edit at Cleveland, so I thought I'd see if you'd want to chime in at the talk page. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Maxwell Show

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Maxwell Show, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Maxwell Show. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

MisterE2123Five5 (talk) 06:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts on a Project Cleveland

The WikiprojectOhio seems to have lost a lot of steam over the past year. Since you and I cross paths on various Cleveland-specific articles so often, I was interested in getting your input on whether a WikiprojectCleveland might serve our purposes better. If you would be in, that would make it a party of 2... and if we found 3 more dedicated editors, we could get it going. Ohio is my home state, and I love it (albeit as an expatriate) but it's too big of a state to effectively be confined to a single project. I'm mainly familiar with Cleveland and Greater Cleveland (particularly the East Side). There is a good deal of material to work with, so stagnation shouldn't be a problem. What do you think?Ryecatcher773 (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it's a go. I'm launching this, and hopefully the boat sails... (here's the invite I'm pasting on potential members talk pages):

You are officially invited to join...

The all new editor group WikiProject Cleveland. We won't be having any cool t-shirts to commemorate our start-up, but adding your name to the members list will certainly carry some Wiki-cred as being an inaugural member... It's a completely from-the-ground-up project, so we can use all the help available. After you join (assuming you would be interested in joining this humble venture) , please slap this template: '{{Template:ClevelandWikiProject}} on the talk pages of every Cleveland-centric article you edit. Thanks, and may the forxe be with you (and by that I mean the Jedi force of course... not the defunct Cleveland MISL franchise).

Yes, I know it's geeky, but it's also very late and my 4-year old will be up in a few hours so I have to work while I can... cheers! Ryecatcher773 (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Jewish sportspeople

Category:Jewish sportspeople, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gnevin (talk) 09:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Connected contributor

Getting the right wording for the template has been tricky, though I think the latest version feels appropriate. There was a discussion about the wording, and the consensus was that something like the current phrasing was the most useful. If you are still uncertain about the wording, perhaps we should hold a discussion on the template talkpage. Let me know what you think. SilkTork *^YES! 17:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I just tweaked your wording, because the template needs to refer to editing beyond the tagged article. The template has the editedhere parameter to indicate whether or not the contributor has edited the tagged article. - Eureka Lott 17:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Duchess' Cook (Alice' Adventures in Wonderland)

Hello, I have removed the prod tag you placed on Duchess' Cook (Alice' Adventures in Wonderland), as an editor has explicitly objected to the deletion on the talk page, thereby making deletion not uncontroversial. Please take to AfD. Thanks! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:By Any Means Necessary.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:By Any Means Necessary.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Court of Honor and Grand Basin

I think you were involved in uploading this to Commons or WP, so you may want to comment at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Court of Honor and Grand Basin.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

Re: [2]. Can you explain to me how G3 Vandalism covers a situation where an editor creates a valid article but with an obviously inadequate title? I'm talking about a situation where the title would be Article about Joe Blow, moved to Joe Blow. G3 certainly doesn't cover that. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for misinterpreting your addition. Perhaps there's a way to word it in a manner that reduces ambiguity and the potential for confusion. - Eureka Lott 21:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

User:98.210.208.190

Can you block this user if you get a chance please? They vandalised again after you gave a level four warning. I'd do it myself but much as I'd like to be, after five years I'm still not an administrator! Tom walker (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Connormah beat me to the punch. The user's been blocked for 24 hours. - Eureka Lott 02:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Kudpung99

Hi. I would just like to thank you most warmly for the part you played in resolving the Kudpung99/ShyGuy fiasco. I had been aware of the problem for quite a while but don't have the tools to take any serious action, and I wasn't sure if the name similarity, although it was deliberate, would have been enough to start the ball rolling. --Kudpung (talk) 04:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help. I only wish I had noticed the situation earlier. - Eureka Lott 17:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for straightening up the Neighbourhoods of Uruguay/Montevideo categorization branch. I thought it must have been a mistake to have a category for Neighbourhoods "of country" instead "of city", but now I see this is done in most countries. Hoverfish Talk 03:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Spam?

I still don't understand this edit. What about the link provided makes it spam? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 13:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Please observe the contributions of User:199.1.202.252. Nearly every edit over the course of several years consists of adding a link to the same journal. Furthermore, the IP address belongs to Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, the publisher of the journal, making it a conflict of interest in addition to spam. Does that make sense? - Eureka Lott 14:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand the COI, but not the spam. Saying it's spam because a user constantly links to it is like saying that I've been spamming by using sources from American Speech or that someone is spamming by providing JSTOR links to article citations. What is wrong with that particular journal? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 15:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference. You're adding references in the course of your editing, not operating an account solely to add links. I think it's also worth remembering the distinction between a reference and an external link. The editor in question wasn't adding the links to support assertions in the articles; s/he was using Wikipedia as an opportunity to promote pieces in the journal. If you think the journal article is a valuable resource, please feel more than welcome to use it in the article. - Eureka Lott 20:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not sure I understand your policy. Which measure listed at WP:ELNO marks this journal for removal as spam? So far, the problem you've given for these links is that they were added by an SPA with a COI, but I don't understand why COI calls for search and destroy of contributions or why the behavior of an individual editor has bearing on notability and reliability of sourcing. Since sources can be given in a sort of "further reading" mode, I also don't see a problem with providing a link that does just that. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 21:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The very next section on that page strongly encourages contributors to "avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent", but most of the relevant guidelines are on Wikipedia:Spam. You may find the citation spam section interesting. Like I said, if you think the link is worthwhile, then you should use it in the article. I won't remove it again. - Eureka Lott 01:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm starting to understand, though not completely. It's no biggie, though. I trust your expertise. Just another reason I'm not a spam fighter. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 14:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Cricket in the UK

Hi. I understand now that you are maintaining a category about sport in the UK as a whole and that naturally you wish to include cricket in that. Which is fine, but would you please bear in mind that within the cricket categories themselves, the UK must remain a peripheral entity. Any reader who is knowledgeable about cricket and is looking for information in a category such as Category:Cricket grounds by country will seek references to the individual member countries, especially England. Therefore, although you are technically correct given the requirements of the wider sporting interest to include a child UK category here, you must not relegate the English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh categories to grandchild status only: they must retain child status also. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 11:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Audio theatre an article to audio dramas

Please if you have time and you know anything to it (I have seen that you have made edits in the article area which owns relations on it) , please look on the article Audio theatre, somebody placed a erase discussion on it. after we have had a merge discussion. It would be interesting what you would say to the merge and the delete discussion. And possibly it could help to contact other people that they should help also. )-: Merry Xmas --Soenke Rahn (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hatter

I really object. He is NEVER called the Mad Hatter in Carroll's books, and that is what the article is about. Your administrative revert was in bad faith, it seems to me. -- Evertype·✆ 19:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Your response has not addressed any of the substantive argument. My objection remains. -- Evertype·✆ 22:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Your response has not addressed any of the substantive argument. My objection remains. -- Evertype·✆ 15:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

2007 Painesville, Ohio train derailment

I'm considering AFD'ing 2007 Painesville, Ohio train derailment now that you've disputed my PROD, but before I do I'd like your thoughts on the matter. In keeping with WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS, this derailment was, perhaps, important enough to stay up for a few days to see if it was going to have any ongoing notability, but there's no indication that it has. No one was killed, the lawsuits were inevitable and equally inconsequential, it's not being used as a "poster child" event to illustrate the need for some kind of reform, the only things that make it different from hundreds of other derailments were the fire, risk of explosion (which didn't happen), and the evacuation, none of which seem important enough to make the article "for the ages" encyclopedic. Did you de-PROD because you think it ought to exist or was it merely because you think enough doubt exists that a deletion discussion is in order? Or is there something that I have missed? Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings about whether the article should stay or go, but I do think it's a well-written article that deserves the opportunity for more discussion than the PROD process allows. I was also curious about the possibility of a transwiki to Wikinews, but upon investigation, that doesn't appear to be an option. - Eureka Lott 21:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. If you care to jump in, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Painesville, Ohio train derailment. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Repeat Vandalism on Cleveland article

I've undone this guys disruptive edits several times (as you may be aware already, he keeps adding 'Mistake on the Lake' back to to the article), and I've posted two warnings on his talk page, but I think he might need to be banned from editing temporarily -- or perhaps a limited protection on the article might be warranted. Let me know what you think, thanks. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Time Warner Cable Amphitheater

Probably not worth changing back, since the project is in flux, but I was careful about tense after editing the article with venue closing information; specifically, I changed "...is part of the mixed-use Tower City Center development in downtown Cleveland...." to "...was...." because although, as the article says, the structure will remain standing for the time being at least, since it's closed, it's not really a part of anything anymore. Mapsax (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a small issue, but to me, using the past tense implies that the ampitheater no longer exists. It's now a disused portion of Tower City, but it is still part of the complex. - Eureka Lott 03:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify on speedy dabs

Would this be a candidate for db-disambig? Or would it have to be like this?   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 21:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Both of those look like reasonable disambiguation pages to me. I find it helps to keep readers in mind when considering disambiguation pages. If a user types "basting" into the search box, there's no way of knowing if they're looking for information about sewing or cooking. Deleting the disambiguation page would be doing them a disfavor. - Eureka Lott 21:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, then I guess I don't understand why WP:TWODABS exists in the first place. Moreover, I guess I am having trouble understanding WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in the context of a dab page. Guess I will have to study that section more before I do any more nominating of short dab pages.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 21:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

If there is a page with a primary topic, say Widgets, and somebody else creates Widgets (green), there would no need for Widgets (disambiguation). The disambiguation could be handled through a hatnote, and the disambiguation page (if created) could be speedy deleted. - Eureka Lott 21:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think I get it now. Thanks for taking the time to explain. I think your latest example helped quite a bit.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 21:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The 'Mistake by the Lake' moniker argument...

Hey, just an FYI, you may want to weigh in on the argument over on the Cleveland page under the subheading of 'Nicknames'. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, the last edit change I made before the full protection tag was put on was both accurate and fair... but that IP address editor (who has been a problem on numerous articles including this one over the past year) changed it to be a less than temporal nickname (see it in the context as it is now, and per my last edit for a better explanation). The article is fully protected for now, so I cannot change the wording back. If you'd be the judge and revert (or not) accordingly, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 03:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Moondog poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Moondog poster.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Trying to maintain civility

First, thank you for categorizing my recent image uploads to the commons. I should've gotten around to it sooner, but you seem to have a much better knowledge of the categories on that side of Wikipedia. Again, thanks. Secondly (and more importantly), I am having trouble with User:Vjmlhds. This user refuses to use his/her talk page if/when I post there, opting instead to reply on mine. Nothing major, but it does make dialogue difficult. This user also frequently has singled me out in edits he/she does not agree with, calling me "buddy boy", "pest", "that guy", etc. etc. I am trying to maintain civility and focus on content, but it's becoming increasingly difficult. I contacted you because you are both a member of WikiProject Cleveland (both myself and this other user are as well), and you are an editor.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, the reason this user and I are having a disagreement today has to do with radio station WKRK-FM. That station will flip its format, from modern/alt rock to sports, at midnight tonight. I am prepared to make the appropriate changes at midnight (assuming someone else doesn't get to it first), but I don't think the article's format should be changed until the station itself begins with the new format (as User:Vjmlhds contends). The upcoming format change is clearly noted in the lead, infobox, and Sports Radio 92.3 sub section. My view is that so long as the station is airing modern/alt rock and branding itself "Radio 92.3", the WKRK-FM article ought to reflect that.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:1990logo.gif

A tag has been placed on File:1990logo.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. Techtri (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

File:1990logo.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:1990logo.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Techtri (talk) 12:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello EurekaLott! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Some baklava for you!

Thank you for subst-ing that template of mine. You saved me some work; I did it myself for the other one. Cheers. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring and vandalism at Dieselpunk

Undiscussed blanking of a 30 k article is not acceptable, even when you use an 18month old AfD as an excuse (especially not when you don't disclose your past involvement in that).

Please raise this at AN/I, and save me the trouble. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Hi EurekaLott,

• Would it be possible for you to respond to my merging/deletion rationale for Andrew Schlafly on the talk page? Thanks.

Regards, --78 Personal Appeals (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I declined your speedy deletion request because the article has survived previous deletion discussions. In case you haven't already reviewed them, they're linked at the top of the article's talk page. - Eureka Lott 04:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. --78 Personal Appeals/Sarbanes-Oxley (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thinking of doing something potentially monumentally stupid.

Hi, I was hoping you could provide some advice on something that I’m toying with. Quite a while ago I was looking at the Babylon 5 article and noticed it was rather long while, a little surprisingly, at the same time didn’t really include any information on various production elements such as the costume, music, special effects etc. But did include a fascinating piece on what accents the actors used. ; ) I also noticed that at one point it was proposed as a possible featured article!? I spend quite a bit of time on the computer due to work, but there’s also periods when I’m sitting playing Tetris waiting for print jobs to finish. So a while back I started looking at essentially rewriting the article from the bottom up.

I’m no editor and can’t write for toffee (obviously), I also don’t have access to any of the print publications which could provide useful information. Could you take a look at the Costume and Music sections that I’ve typed up in this sandbox. There rough (and incomplete) but should give an idea of the direction I’m taking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Minsk59/sandbox

Ignore everything else. ; ) the other content is more for giving me an idea of formatting and a place to hold some rough notes, bits of information and ideas. Basically, am I going off on a tangent, and the content is not suitable for a wiki article. If so that’s fine, and I’ll start playing Solitaire as I’m getting sick of Tetris. If the general idea is sound then I have no problems in spending a bit more time attempting to put more content together, with the hope that more experienced editors will then duly rip it apart in order to bring it up to Wikipedia standards, and perhaps add further information, before even considering the remote possibility of replacing the existing article. Basically I’m not so arrogant as to attempt this alone. ; )

BTW. I realise interest in the B5 article is low, for various reasons. I’ve approached yourself (and two others) as I noticed you’ve edited the thing a number of times over the last year or so, and appear to know what the hell your doing. ; ) But if I’m barking up the wrong barge poll, please let me know. If you know of anyone else who may be interested in passing an eye over what is being put together, or who may have access to printed reference material, that would be most appreciated as well. Cheers. Minsk59 (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Two articles for same building, one with wrong info...

Eureka, see my post on the talk page for the Huntington Bank Building. It contains misinformation, and as well is a stub compared to the larger 200 Public Square article, which as we know is the same building. I can't move the one (200 Public Square) to the correct title with its new name until the other one is deleted. Thanks Ryecatcher773 (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• The articles refer to two different buildings. They're both tagged with their coords, so you can easily see the difference. 200 Public Square shouldn't be moved, because while Huntington moved its offices into the building and bought signage rights, they didn't purchase the building's naming rights (see this article in Crain's). - Eureka Lott 16:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Input request

You have contributed to article The Really Big Show (formerly Rizzo on the Radio). This article is currently being considered for deletion. Please consider providing input at the article's discussion page: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Really_Big_Show.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear EurekaLott,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

How does one go about freeing up a name for an article that was previously used?

Northeast Ohio was, at some point, moved or merged with Greater Cleveland, and given that it may be necessary to establish the distinction between the two with separate Wikipedia articles, I was wondering how we can free-up the name 'Northeast Ohio' from it's current status as a re-direct so that it can become available for use as an article name again. Thanks. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)