User talk:EurekaLott/Archive07

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)