User talk:Eva UX

Eva UX is away on vacation and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Hello and welcome.

I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. So if you leave me a message here, I will reply here. I will not continue to watch a talk page if the discussion has migrated. By the same token, if I leave a comment on another talk page, please respond to it there. At the same time, feel free to send an alert about a comment you have left elsewhere. Also please note that I find user warning templates generally inappropriate. If I have made a mistake and there's something you'd like to say, please take a moment to write a comment below in your own words.

Thank you.

Welcome!

Welcome! Hello, Eva UX, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Zuck28 (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to I Love the New Millennium—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 09:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Eva UX. My edit was most constructive so I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions to I Love the New Millennium—because yours did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. And PS- when you revert a constructive edit with a perfectly clear edit summary, don't forget to explain yourself. That is the bare minimum. Thanks Eva UX (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that your revert reinstated a PROD tag and that is not permitted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Eva UX (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...... Eva UX (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? What "editing privileges" did I "abuse"? Don't you think you are obviously involved, anyway? As this whole thing could seem to be motivated by my mention (and revert) of your evidently hasty revert of a simple (and justified) redirect? A revert with no edit summary and this boilerplate template only to mention it... See above and see the page history of the article in question. This could look like a hasty block to punish someone who (with perhaps some unnecessary sarcasm, I confess, for which, if you indeed felt offended, I sincerely apologise, although I didn't mean to be insulting, just ironic and I honestly really can see no harm in my messages but I may be wrong) just let you know you made a mistake [unjustified and basically undue revert; de facto reinsertion of a PROD tag, etc.] And you inform me of the block after one day only? (thank you @Liz) This seems a bit strange (and that is a huge understatement)... Not to mention the massive rollback of perfectly constructive contributions, always (I think) made in a civil, constructive and respectful spirit. As for multiple accounts, I did in my opinion always follow the rules regarding doppelgänger accounts; I have personal off-wiki reasons to use them; and, but less importantly, cross-wiki ones; if you are really interested in knowing them, please email me. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Eva UX (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MULTIPLE is a good start for legitimate usage of multiple accounts but you have to declare them. – The Grid (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've re-read that page and, honestly, it seems to confirm I did not indeed break any rule and did nothing wrong, ["outside of estalished policy"]. And precisely, it says declaring other accounts is recommended, for example. Again, I'd rather discuss private issues by email. [Are you the same user, or just passing by?].

. Eva UX (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just a user passing by. I'll ping Materialscientist on their options. – The Grid (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Their talk page seems to indicate that they are not "pingable" for some reason, from what I gathered (I only had a cursory look at some sections, though). Eva UX (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Eva UX (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, I never "abused" multiple accounts nor did I provoke any disruption that I can think of with any account. I have read multiple times the relevant policies and guidelines and cannot see when I would have made any "inappropriate use of alternative account"(s). Unless I am very much mistaken, I never used multiple accounts on the same page, for example. I had various reasons to create and use other accounts (including frequent travelling) but if that is a problem and creates a climate of suspicion, I can edit only from one account from now on (but that would have to be less and with long interruptions, then, which is fine for me). Thank you. Eva UX (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I have unblocked you on the basis you will use just one account from now on. Welcome back. PhilKnight (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eva UX (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My use of the CheckUser tool indicates you have used multiple accounts. I am not saying this is abuse, at least not yet, but I think you should come clean and list all of your accounts. If you want you can email me them. PhilKnight (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your email. The accounts found by CheckUser are all mentioned by you. PhilKnight (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Mushy Yank? I see they were also just blocked as a sock. This is shocking. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are abusing the unblock template; your alternate accounts are not going to be unblocked. We also cannot change the block reason. Either you revert those talk page additions or it will be done for you; I suggest you not try our patience in this regard. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what? Whose patience? How am I abusing the template? Pray, elaborate. You cannot "change the block reason"...? But there are no abuses and therefore are the blocks unjustified. Hence my requests.Eva UX (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The condition of your unblock was you only use one account going forward so there is no reason to unblock your blocked alts because you cannot use them or any others regardless if they were blocked or not. The one account restriction is fairly common in these circumstances. S0091 (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not correct. I myself indicated that I could use one account only as yet another proof of my good faith. I cannot see why as a consequence of this, even if I said I would not use them, my old accounts should be presented as sock puppets nor [why they should be] blocked. I also indicated that it will considerably diminish my contributions to the project but never mind. Should all old or inactive accounts be blocked? Yes or No?Eva UX (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is historically what I have seen is blocked alts remain blocked. Also, if you want admins to engage with you, I suggest adjusting your tone as it comes across as combative/demanding. Other than that, nothing more from me. S0091 (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked "sock puppets"/"masters"/accounts are and remain blocked when abuses are identified. Not the case here. Thank you anyway. I did and will continue to try my best to remain polite and considerate and apologise if you perceived combative undertones in my reply.Eva UX (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prods

I noticed you have been removing prods with the note "not uncontroversial". That's entirely fine, but you should post how it's not controversial, i.e. how you object to it, either in the edit summary or by posting on the article's talk page. Thanks! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I do specify the reasons most of the times but at times the page is so obviously not suitable for PROD that it does not seem necessary; will try to do it in the future, though. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eva UX (talk • contribs)

I've noticed several of your recent deprods with questionable rationales, such as Eggert House with Consider a redirect, please where there was no likely redirect target. Please be more careful with your deprodding. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there was a good redirect target. I am most careful when I dPD a page and none of my DPD is even remotely questionable...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eva UX (talk • contribs)

And what was your intended redirect target, and why did you not specify it in your deprod? PS: please remember to sign your talk page posts. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) see Afd you initiated 2) seemed pretty obvious.--- Eva Ux 19:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

seemed pretty obvious Please include suggested redirect targets in your unprod edit summary, even if you think they are obvious, because they may not be obvious to other people. Thanks. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...And nominating the template I use instead of mentioning it to me was rude, and adds a confusing template on top of this page...--- Eva Ux 20:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC) The sources you added to Shallow web when de-PRODing refer to two different definitions of the term, which do not match the topic of that article and do not verify the sentences you added them to. It appears as if you are searching Google books for terms and adding the first results as sources to articles without even checking what they say. Please stop doing this. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 11:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...uh, no, I checked what they say and it seems to verify the two different meanings of the term (1=almost synomym of ’static web’, 2=’hidden’) and the implications of your message are inappropriate.--- Eva Ux 16:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not mention the first meaning and the sources do not support the second meaning. If you think it is inappropriate for me to point out that you are using sources incorrectly, a simple solution would be to stop using sources incorrectly. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 16:44, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, again, 1) that’s not the way I understand either the sources nor the article but maybe I am wrong; other sources exist anyway (which is the meaning of ”coverage exists” ) 2) the IMPLICATIONS, which your second message confirms, that this is a general pattern in my contributions are inappropriate. You don’t like the fact that I deprodded the article, sure, that’s understandable and I beg you to pardon my audacity. Goodbye.--- Eva Ux 17:50, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is Hayden Rolence notable?

Can't find much notability for his short films? [1] [2] [3] DareshMohan (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! if that is all that there is, I would say that a Redirect to Dory is at least totally warranted but one can argue that despite him not meeting WpNACTOR and having had apparently a short career, the coverage although very much limited to 2015-2016) could pass for enough for GNG. So not a very clear pass but not a very problematic page either imo. (Still not home and struggling with a portable,de ice so maybe I missed things and left typos, sorry). Cheers! - E. Ux 09:16, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chosen Eight

It is your responsibility to convert it to a redirect, since I don't know where it should go. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:44, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? If you say so. Your wishes are my commands. - E. Ux 18:48, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. You removed the PROD tag, so you presumably know where it should be redirected. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_Elfquest_characters#Glider_Elves....I was about to do it but you Afded the page....and csded the project page.....please fix it. - E. Ux 18:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the inconvenience, I have done so now. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. Thanks for the fast reply and reaction. - E. Ux 18:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is Mia Talerico notable once American Summer releases?

Has nobody seen Good Luck Charlie? 😭 [4]. DareshMohan (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say Yes to the 1st question. And no, to the second. - E. Ux 19:31, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Junior MGR isn't notable

First things first, the article was poorly created [5] and seems to have a bit of COI [6].

There are four kinds of roles: Leading, supporting (both of which are mentioned in reviews), minor and uncredited/unknown. He has 1 lead role, 1 supporting/minor role, 4 minor roles, 1 uncredited/unknown role. REDIRECT to Irumban, he is not a notable supporting actor yet. The reason I am calling one of his role borderline supporting is because it was mentioned in a Hindi dubbed review: [7].

I'm sure @Kailash29792: would agree with me, the only thing preventing me from doing an AfD are these sources: [8] [9]. The second sources says: He asked me if I was okay with any role. I said that even if I could run in the background in a scene in the film, I would be okay. So, unlike we expected he did not play a supporting role in Coolie but a minor one.

The only reason that Neutral Fan revamped the article is because he has leading/main antagonist roles in five unreleased films including 1848 and Prabhu Deva's Musasi. And in regards to his childhood television roles, nobody knows what series those are.

Regarding [10], he was obviously very bulky for Irumban, so he had to tone down. Also most of the sources except the weight source are primary sources. DareshMohan (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done - E. Ux 22:06, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No article is needed as the August 16 1947 role is uncredited anyways. DareshMohan (talk) 07:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Angammal (no theater release, won 2 awards) [11]. DareshMohan (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly notable, indeed! - E. Ux 10:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prods 2

Hello, I've noticed that when you remove PRODs from some articles, you say "please redirect" in your edit summaries.

I have a question about this: Since it's possible to redirect these articles yourself, is there a reason why upon removing the PRODs, you leave the articles how they are for someone else to do so? I'm asking this because other users have raised this concern on this talk page before, as seen in comments like these. Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 12:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The reason may be that I am lazy and traveling and with no decent keyboard, but mostly that I leave it to the Proder or to people who watch the page to choose which path they like best: redirect to [one of] the target(s) I suggest, leave it the way it is or improve it. Deproders don’t have to redirect pages even if they suggest a redirect nor to improve them. They can, if they want. They don’t even have to say why they contest Prods, despite what some people sometimes think. Removing the tag suffices. And it’s easy to understand why if you read the instructions and policies regarding PRODS. I generally explain why I deprod pages, though, and sometimes redirect pages myself boldly when I don’t have time to improve them. Cheers, - E. Ux 19:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Traveling can be pretty rough, and having an indecent keyboard is not fun. And the {{subst:Proposed deletion}} tag does say this: You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. So now I understand why you do this. I appreciate this input! Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 23:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holographic consciousness

Hi. My claim is that the topic is not notable for wikipedia, with any coverge that exists is largly fringe or simply not notable in having minimal citations. Not that no coverage exists. You have't addressed any of the claims I made concerning the lack of notability of the references. OpenScience709 (talk) 13:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks. Sure, I understood and you may be right. But I just contestd the PROD because Wp:AfD seems more appropriate, given the existing coverage. Cheers. - E. Ux 13:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Eva UX. Ahh ok, in that case thank you! In that case do I need to now submit it to WP:AfD? Thanks. OpenScience709 (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Got it! Have a nice day! OpenScience709 (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Satanic film merge

Hello. You've removed the tag for potential deletion. As there is no discussion on the topic of the article and per the previous attempted re-naming of the article, what do you suggest moving it to per your edit here? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I personnally think the list should be kept. But if merged, maybe either Satanism or Horror film (when they are horror films) or a multiple merge into (yet not created) subsections in respective Lists of horror films by decades. That would imply a huge amount of work and some sort of consensus regarding the MO, though. Again, I think inclusion criteria being clear and entries verifiable, this list is not a problem. - E. Ux 18:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't validate the removal of delete. Nobody could agree with the genre is (or if its exists) and no sources have been found to clarify what it is. So unless that can be resolved, there is no reason to move as nobody has been able to find anything to clarify what it means. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your email!! :)

Only 1 of 2 people who made a big impact on my life. In fact, the only way to achieve the success irl that everybody does is to not be active here so I won't be able to fix Draft:Namak Haraam (Wikipedia deleted a famous Amitabh Bachchan film, but I could care less, now that they want ME to fix it more).

I mean when i die, who will fix wiki then anyways (lol)? The fact that Wikipedia isn't up to mark with more editors/AI, isn't my fault (only some thousands of people are responsible for all of its content, much less are active) DareshMohan (talk) 06:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for objecting to my deletion template.

I was actually able to track down the painting and expand the article and make knowledge more accessable. Thanks so much :) Moss-beds (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback! - E.—UX 16:42, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References template

When adding references to an article, remember to also use the template "reflist" or they will not be displayed at the end of the article.Dimadick (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLAR cleanup

Hi! If you blank and redirect a page, could you try to also remove any redirects from the target page that point back to the new redirect, to avoid circular redirects when someone clicks a link expecting new information and get sent right back where they started? Thanks :) Rusalkii (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect?

WP:DRAFTOBJECT doesn't really apply here, it was a draft that just recently got accepted, I am actually appealing the move to mainspace (I think?). Someone else had already asked my opinion, and I thought it should just be redirected to the director's article since it passes WP:NFF (it exists and I am assuming it is completed, it just won't premiere until November), but appears to fail WP:NFILM. That way, we can recreate if it winds up becoming notable later. Are you also suggesting that option? I'm just trying to gain some kind of consensus before I redirect it, since I am very involved in the article. - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure, redirect it to the director if you wish. - E.UX 09:24, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

Did you mean WP:NTVEP? -- Alex_21_TALK 22:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What else could I possibly mean?----- E.UX 22:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, you detailed a redlink as your reason. Please note that you have now reached three reverts within 24 hours on the article. Kindly discuss the material properly. -- Alex_21_TALK 22:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"you detailed a redlink as your reason."....No. Not true. I detailed MUCH MORE. AND TWICE. Goodbye. --- E.UX 23:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See, was that truly so hard to address the issues, instead of edit-warring? I might have expected this, having noted that you've removed at least over three dozen maintenance tags from articles over the past week, it seems to be a recurring activity. "Yelling" by taking in all capitals unfortunately doesn't help either of us.

I'll also note, however, that NTVEP states It is preferred to have reliable sources discussing production aspects of the episode in question, [...] rather than simply recounting the plot, and then details four examples of television episode articles - can you agree that the given article we have is of far poorer quality than these? Is there a reason no production information can be included? -- Alex_21_TALK 23:19, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Goodbye. --- E.UX 23:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll save this discussion and permlink as a refusal to discuss and inability to answer the above questions. Thank you for that. -- Alex_21_TALK 23:24, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but just leave my talk page. GOODBYE! --- E.UX 23:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again - do you intend to answer the questions above? If you are unable to provide further information, I'll go about adding the relevant tags to the article once more. -- Alex_21_TALK 23:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply to your "questions".

1)"can you agree that the given article we have is of far poorer quality than these? " Feel free to improve it. It's a start-class article. The examples given in the guideline are (as could be expected) Good Articles. QED.

2) "Is there a reason no production information can be included? -" There is no production section probably because no one has bothered to add one. That's the reason. Again, feel free. --- E.UX 23:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, thank you for discussing this now. I will go ahead and restore the relevant templates so that passing editors know to include and improve on the material in the article. -- Alex_21_TALK 23:38, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion

Hello Eva UX, thank you for all the sources, now Daria Massey article is safe, the deletion is removed.

I added some sources at Miranda Connell but they reverted all, I' dont have access at Newspapaer access, but I now she is very notable, hosting a children TV Show, not a name for deletion.

Also I notice actor Michael Willis article is also in danger. He had notable roles but need some sources and references Adelberta (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adelberta.

Jahaza has added sources to that discussion: if you think they're convincing, you should !vote Keep -in bold there, and explain why.

I generally follow AfDs of actors, so that, if I have time, I might check that page too. Cheers. -E-UX 08:47, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Hello, I'm Stifle. I wanted to let you know that your signature does not seem to meet the requirements for signature appearances. It's difficult to read due to the superscript, subscript, and shadowing, and it fails to include your full username. Additionally, your very frequent substantial changes to your signature are liable to confuse people into thinking your posts are made by multiple users. Please consider settling on a single signature, and be conscious of contrast as well as the above-noted policy and guidelines. If you have any questions, feel free to reply or ask for help at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks, but my signature does not include superscript nor subscript, just shadowing. No guideline mentions that full user names should appear in the signature, as far as I am aware - the guideline even states clearly "A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username, but this is not required." And my signature does not differ from my user name that much anyway....- nor is it very difficult to realise it is the same user, methinks- will do my best regarding that last point. If you have any questions, feel free to reply or ask for help at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks.-E-UX 12:04, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]