User talk:EurekaLott/Archive15

Madison Cawthorn

Why did you revert my edits on the Madison Cawthorn article? Aquila89 (talk) 09:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry about that! It was a mistake on my part. I have reinstated your edits. - Eureka Lott 14:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Aquila89 (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Michael Landsberry

Hi. I saw your note on why you declined the speedy on this article, but my question is, if the source listed in the copyvio report, and the WP article both copied from a PD source, isn't that still a copyvio? Unlike the federal government, local government sites are usually still copyrighted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi. The source document is from the U.S. Air Force, not a local government. As WP:PD#US government works notes, most content on .mil sites is in the public domain. I don't see any indication that this material would be copyrighted. - Eureka Lott 14:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

EurekaLott, okay, thanks. When you said PD source, my mind went to Police Department, when it should have gone to Public Domain. Sorry. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Pegity for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pegity 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/Pegity until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Relink-delete

Hi EurekaLott,

I've worked mainly on the German Wikipedia, where we deal with orphaned relinks complete differently to here – they get quick-deleted all the time. I wrote and asked in more detail about that on this user page already, but obviously still haven't penetrated the mind-set here on the English Wikipedia. I'm really trying, but this sort of undo is foxing me. What could possibly be the use of leaving a leftover orphan from 2009 in place, that resulted from moving a user page to the article space? Especially when that user has been inactive since 2009! Even worse, you also want to save the left-over variation Dan milner with a small m – which would never qualify as a proper article title, so what is the point of keeping it?!

All this empty "packaging" floating about is really annoying, for instance if you are dealing with processes like the one I was busy with: Looking at every page which links to Dan Milner, to correct the 20-odd pages that linked to him even though they should have red-linked to Dan Milner (film editor) instead. No-one bothered to clean those false links up, even though the problem was understood on Talk:Dan Milner 10 years ago!

So please, try to explain to me with patience and leniency why it is so important for these zombie pages to exist... Greetings from --Sprachraum (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for fixing all those links. Based on your comments here and on @Lugnuts' talk page, I think you might want to review the reasons for deleting and the reasons for keeping a redirect. There are also a handful of speedy deletion criteria for redirects, but those are deliberately narrow. The short version is that redirects are cheap, and we typically don't delete them unless they're creating a problem - Eureka Lott 02:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi EurekaLott, thanks for the help page links, some of which I had already read, but possibly not completely absorbed, since the philosophy behind them is so starkly different to the one I'm used to. But you answer only in general terms, and don't address the specific example above. Yes, I understand "redirects are cheap", but as I wrote you, in the above case they did create a problem, and they serve no useful purpose. So why leave them in place, which leads to them popping up in search results? According to the speedy deletion help you linked to, had the user himself requested their deletion, that would have met the criteria. But since he/she has not been active since 2009, why shouldn't someone else clean up his/her leftovers, especially the Dan milner relink with a small "m"? In the time I need to write this, this exact type of example would have already been deleted on the German WP.

I would also appreciate you telling me whether these two Milner relinks have a good-to-realistic chance for a deletion in a normal WP:RfD process, because I will not waste my time on futile cleaning-up efforts anymore. Here is an even worse example from an abandoned article-attempt repurposed as a misguided redirect – which has obviously "created a problem", but where I have now asked one of the people involved to move ahead, and will watch and learn. Would be nice to know, if in your opinion, this finally meets the "deliberately narrow" criteria for a speedy delete, or if it still has to go to regular RfD. --Sprachraum (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Luckily contrarian views are appreciated in the WP, so while you point to WP:CHEAP, I believe there is a lot to say for WP:COSTLY, and I feel that you, and other admins tasked with assessing delete requests, may have been sucked too much into a routine of denying them, whereas a more case-specific openness to reflect on whether they are really worth keeping, would be helpful. --Sprachraum (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but here is another example: The totally-against-all-rules redirect Film Editor (Dick Allen), created back in 2013, by a newby who didn't know how to set internal links properly – a state that persists until today in the article Hotel du Lac. This is not harmless, because if you enter "Film editor" in the Wikipedia search box, this relink appears in the popdown preview as the second result that is offered. No other film editor in the entire Wikipedia is given such "prominence". Does that meet your criterion for a quick delete or not?

Hello again. As I mentioned earlier, the speedy deletion criteria for redirects are deliberately narrow—they're intended for cases when deletion is so clear-cut that there's almost no chance of disagreement. All other deletion proposals for redirects should go to WP:RFD. If you think a redirect should be deleted as implausible, they need to have been recently-created to qualify for speedy deletion (WP:R3). The redirects you've identified aren't recent creations, so RFD is the place to discuss them. More specifically:

• It's difficult to predict how the two redirects from userspace would fare at RFD, because that sort of redirect doesn't come up very often. I don't expect there would be a large appetite to delete them, but you never know, especially if you can make a convincing argument that they're harmful.
• The Magellan (film) redirect, as you noted, isn't pointing to an appropriate target. If you want to pursue deletion here, you have a couple options. You could bring it to RFD, or you could revert it to its last version as an article and nominate it for deletion via WP:AFD or WP:PROD.
• The Film Editor (Dick Allen) redirect is indeed an awkward construction, and likely would be deleted if nominated at RFD.

Hope that answers your questions. - Eureka Lott 04:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Eureka Lott; that is very helpful; especially concerning the options with Magellan (film). Which of the options would you personally choose in such a (weird) case? --Sprachraum (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I would probably go with WP:PROD, because it would require the least effort, and because RFD participants sometimes object to using that process to delete pages that used to be articles. - Eureka Lott 04:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

PS 17

[1] Other than what I glance from the section immediately above; I specifically said to tell me "if there's any issue...". As I said, I think this one actually might pose problem with the search function if I want to create Ps 17, so just asking. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. You moved a page to a new title, and then requested speedy deletion of the previous title. That would break every incoming link to the page from elsewhere on the web, and is why speedy deletions of redirects from page moves are explicitly forbidden under WP:R3. For your specific issue, please see WP:DIFFCAPS. The presence of PS 17 doesn't need to affect the target of Ps 17. If the two redirects target different pages, I'd suggest adding hatnotes to both target articles for clarification. - Eureka Lott 03:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I had previously fixed the redirect on a template (which accounted for the vast majority of links at the Special:WhatLinksHere page). I've now fixed the few others. I don't see how R3 applies since I had tagged this with G6. Anyway, if it doesn't matter anyway. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Deleted redirects

You recently restored two redirect pages ("bad faith creation of a broken link") after speedy deletions. There are (at least) three more redirects speedily-deleted by re-targetting and then PROD'ing the new target (and then recreating the PROD'd article).

• Claudia Pulchra (wife of Quintus Caecilius Metellus Celer)
• Claudia Pulchra (wife of Quintus Marcius Rex)
• Claudia Pulchra (wife of Tiberius Gracchus)

Not the most critical redirects in Wikipedia, at least one has been the subject of an RfD (no consensus), but I'm minded to re-create them and it might be better if the previous history was kept. I already re-created the following after similar speedy deletions:

• Claudia Pulchra (wife of Lucullus)
• Claudia Pulchra (wife of Gracchus)
• Claudia Pulchra (wife of Philippus)
• Claudia Pulchra Minor
• Claudia Pulchra (wife of Augustus)
• Claudia Pulchra (great-niece of Augustus)

Just so I'm not dropping you into anything unexpectedly, the whole saga relates to Claudia Pulchra (disambiguation) and has spun up as far as Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_users_Lithopsian_and_Narky_Blert. Lithopsian (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for the delated reply, but thanks for letting me know about these, @Lithopsian. Many of these were previously discussed at WP:RFD and the speedy deletions were clearly attempts to circumvent the earlier discussions. I restored them all except for Claudia Pulchra (great-niece of Augustus) and Claudia Pulchra (wife of Philippus), which had no substantive histories to restore. There's now a new discussion underway at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 15#Claudia Pulchra (wife of Gracchus), and I left a comment there. - Eureka Lott 18:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion: Savant Systems

Hello. You declined the speedy deletion of the article on Savant Systems, the company that bought GE Lighting in East Cleveland. The article has now been nominated for deletion again. I wrote the article but I don't free precious about it. I know nothing about Wikipedia policies, but perhaps you know more and would like to comment on the proposal for deletion. Cheers, Overtone11 (talk)

Take a look at this

Hello, your opinion matters. Mod Dam 1199 R You are invited to help with the clarification. Regards Meow2021 (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The Moog Cookbook's albums

Because according to you the fact that the The Moog Cookbook album articles, are an Stub, is not justification to redirect them to the article of the group already mentioned.--Germanico5468504 (talk) 03:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Most stubs are short articles that haven't yet been expanded to their full potential. If being a stub was a valid reason to WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT an article to a related topic, then we'd have no stubs at all. Stubs have to meet the same notability guidelines as any other article. In this case it's WP:NALBUM, which I feel is met. - Eureka Lott 15:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cleveland City Council seal.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cleveland City Council seal.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

History of science books???

Hey there: About 10 years ago you were about to propose merging Category:History books about science into Category:Books about the history of science -- but you had second thoughts about it. I just came across those categories, but try as I might, I am unable to see a useful distinction between them -- much less a usable distinction for readers and editors. However, I thought you might perhaps be able to shed some light on this, before I proceed with tagging them for merging. Thanks in advance! Anomalous+0 (talk) 03:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Wow, you're going way back with that one. I've been trying to remember what led me to reconsider, but I can't recall what I was thinking. Sorry I can't be of more help! - Eureka Lott 00:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

LOL! - That's okay, I knew it was a longshot. :)

I'll probably go ahead with tagging them some time in the next day or two. Obviously, you are welcome to put your two cents in at the discussion; I'll let you know when I go forward. Thanks for taking the time to reply! Anomalous+0 (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Name confusion at Babel

Hi Eureka. Sorry about my confused edits at Tabitha (name), I must have looked at the edit history backwards or something. We meant the same, and I got it in the end.

I don't know if biblical or onomastic (I mean: anthroponymy :) ) topics interest you. Anyway, I consider my proposal there to be of a strictly logical nature. Maybe you want to contribute your opinion, since I've already wasted some of your time with it. (Now that's very logical, isn't it?) Have a nice day, Arminden (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

for your information

user:catchpoke has been indefinitely blocked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.161.203.11 (talk • contribs) 18:07, September 3, 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Broadside Electric for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Broadside Electric 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/Broadside Electric until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

User taking down references

Hi @EurekaLott,

Thank you for your help with this page Wheels (2014 film). I haven't used my account for years and got the email today about the deletion. I could use your advice or help regarding an issue I am having. It seems that the same user who marked it for deletion, is deleting references and trying to chip away at the article. It seems that the user is on a mission to take the page down. With I am fine with, but he is not doing it through the correct channels and making harassing comments on my user talk page. User talk:Film Fanatical10069

He took down my references for IndieWire, AFI, Turner Classic Movies and Movie Insider. It's pretty black and white, I just don't know how to stop this back and forth. I really don't want to get tangled into this person's drama. Can you please help or advise me on what to do? I really just want to edit and create on this site. Thank you in advance for your help or advice. Film Fanatical10069 (talk) 05:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a very probably sockpuppet of a blocked paid editor, Ugochukwu75. Please see the sockpuppet investigation here for the behavioral evidence. Fred Zepelin (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Severance Hall/Music Center issue

I'm putting this here since you've been helpful to me and others regarding Northeast Ohio issues. I didn't expect the terse "no" instead of "oppose" in your response to my second renaming proposal but I realize that I've been insistent about it. I only came back to it because of the reports about the COVID cancellations over the weekend which, in my small sampling, had switched over to the new name, which led me to the Google search; of course, at least one RS hadn't with respect to the cancellations, as you showed. Obviously my issue is with the renaming policy so I'll leave this alone for a while, a longer while than the last time. Mapsax (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. Didn't mean to come across as snippy. Guess I was just frustrated that you disregarded the advice from other editors on the talk page and that we had to spend time revisiting the issue so soon after the previous proposal. Now that the discussion is closed, it might make sense to have a redirect at Severance Music Center. What do you think? - Eureka Lott 03:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

[Just found this] Well, as you can see, someone else beat us to it. Obviously I'm OK with it. Again, didn't mean to beat the issue to death, I just legitimately thought it was time to revisit it. Even as I've recently heard an ad calling the venue "Mandel Concert Hall at Severance", I'm still going to leave it be. Mapsax (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Think Like a Winner!

Hi, Why the article got deleted when it was improved with more sources and was reviewed by you? The concerned admin has refused to undelete it. Please look at it if you can help. Thanks. Insight 3 (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello. The Deletion review discussion you opened appears to be reaching consensus. That discussion is solely about the appropriateness of the speedy deletion. It seems likely that the article will be restored when that discussion closes, but when that happens, there's a good chance a regular deletion discussion will then be opened. Other editors have expressed concern that the article doesn't meet the notability criteria for books. If the article is restored at the conclusion of the deletion review, you will again have the opportunity to improve it. - Eureka Lott 03:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A token of thanks Hi EurekaLott! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)