User talk:EurekaLott/Archive08

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. Levdr1 lostpassword ( 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.   Levdr1 lostpassword  ( 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 Files for deletion. Please see the 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)

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, Regards, --78 Personal Appeals (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible for you to respond to my merging/deletion rationale for Andrew Schlafly on the talk page? Thanks.


 * 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)