User talk:Levdr1lp

Michigan - Ohio State rivalry

Please discuss your edits on Talk before making them again, so we can sort out the most sensible way to handle things. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

See the appropriate talk page. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to 3RR template you but your unwillingness to consider any variation to your (unsourced!) surmises about OSU's actions today - and its implication for Tressel's "official" record - is discouraging and, in my view, a problem. JohnInDC (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I *will* template you this time. The sources - of questionable reliability on the immediate question in the first place - disagree. Your edits reflect your own personal interpreation of which one is the better one, and as such are inappropriate. Please stop making them. JohnInDC (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see the appropriate talk page. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that edit

And I mean that sincerely. Thanks again. JohnInDC (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

A thousand pardons

I am terribly sorry. I just noticed. I am very glad I checked my contribs or I wouldn't have seen it. I must have clicked rollback somehow while doing something else both stupidly and quickly. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ellison & Painesville

I was mistaken and jumped the gun. Harlan Ellison certainly grew up in Painesville, Ohio, a small to medium town some 20 to 30 miles from Cleveland along the coast, and an episode of the revived 1980s Twilight Zone written by HE about a writer returning to the small town he grew up in is autobiographical and about HE's return to Painesville as an adult. I myself attended a lecture by HE in Cleveland in 1988 in which he spoke at length about his youth in Paineville. However, according to Harlan Ellison: the edge of forever By Ellen Weil, Gary K. Wolfe, he was actually born in....Cleveland, and his family relocated to Painesville shortly after his birth. I apologize for my hastiness.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Levdr1lostpassword, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Levdr1lostpassword/sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.
• Shut off the bot here.
• Report errors here.
• If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

WMMS

Hey... I didn't mean to start a fuss, it's just that that sports is a big part of WMMS' image (when you carry games of all 3 of Cleveland's major sports teams, it deserves a mention). In all reality, what WMMS is trying to be more or less is a radio "man cave". You have the hot talk, active rock (Nikki Sixx fits into both), the Browns, and a handful of Tribe and Cavs games. That shows they're trying to be a "guy's radio station", thus it's hard to pigeon hole them into one category. Again, thanks for seeing things my way. Vjmlhds 19:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I've decided to remove the Indians and Cavaliers note from the lead. Rover, Sixx Sense, Browns, Alan Cox: the major programming is all that's needed.

Also, it's not so much that I see things your way as I am in no mood for an edit conflict with you. That requires communication, a little difficult given your tendency to repeatedly blank your talk page. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Why did you remove all of the Browns info from the WMMS and WTAM articles? Vjmlhds 21:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not remove anything from WMMS – I moved it to history. The Browns have not yet announced who will serve as the team's flagship for 2013, so as of the close of the 2012 season, there is no flagship. I removed the WTAM Browns content from the "Current programming" section b/c it is not longer current and b/c it was completely unsourced. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 21:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

According to this article from Crain's, the rights don't expire until Spring 2013. Remember, the Browns network does their NFL Draft show in April, so let's wait until after that to do all this switching around. Until Spring, the Browns are still officially property of WTAM/WMMS. You didn't like people jumping the gun about the stadium name, so don't do it here. Play by the same rules you want everyone else to play by. Vjmlhds 23:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the Browns content – for now – per the Crain's article. I missed that bit about the Spring. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. As for the Indians, please note that WMMS is *not* a flagship and should not be labelled as such. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 00:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, pleae note that the March equinox – the start of "spring" – occurs in late March. The 2013 NFL Draft begins April 25. There is no guarantee that WMMS/WTAM will still have rights to the Browns when the draft begins. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 00:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Once we get closer to the draft, let's see how the Browns advertise it on their website. If it's advertised to be on WTAM/WMMS, then it's business as usual, if not, then something may be up. But let's wait and see how it plays out before we do all kinds of wholesale changes. Vjmlhds 01:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

If WMMS/WTAM air NFL Draft coverage, then we'll have to wait and see. If WMMS/WTAM do not air NFL draft coverage, that would be more than sufficient verification (along with Crain's article, Cleveland.com/PD, ABJ, etc.) that they are not covering the Browns for 2013. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 02:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

When I said "business as usual" I was merely refering to keeping these articles as status quo through the draft. If the draft doesn't air on WMMS/WTAM (either/or depending on what the Indians are doing) then that could be the biggest clue that something's up. Vjmlhds 03:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

If WMMS/WTAM does not air the NFL Draft, that is all the verification that is necessary to know if WMMS/WTAM are, at that point, the current radio partners/flagships. The NFL Draft is the last possible thing which can air on WMMS/WTAM before the rights expire. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 03:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

WKNR/WWGK - NFL on Westwood One

Ohio Media Watch is a very respected media blog covering the happenings in Cleveland media. [1] If he puts some info either on his blog or on a message board, it's money in the bank. OMW has gone above and beyond talking about the new FM sports station coming to Cleveland, dropping all kinds of info (New program director, talent signings, etc.) So I feel confident in editing WKNR/WWGK to reflect the fact that they have lost the WW1 package. Vjmlhds 00:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

For the purposes of Wikipedia, a message board just isn't good enough. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Read it and weep, buddy boy: [2] Hate to say I told you so, but... Vjmlhds 17:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with Ohio Media Watch (the blog, not from some message board). Just add it to the article and we're good. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, please use the established convention if you're going to post on my talk page. Colons, etc. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough about the message board/blog deal. Also, I got a little snotty with you because I felt you were getting a little bit up on your high horse with me, so it was a tit for tat thing. Listen, let's cut the advisarial stuff out, and work together. Vjmlhds 00:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I will remove any future edits to my talk page which do not conform to the established convention on Wikipedia (colons, etc.). Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

TV Station On Air Talent

LEAVE THE ON AIR TALENT FOR TV STATIONS ALONE! IF YOU CONTINUE TO DELETE THE TALENT ROSTERS ON ALL THE CLEVELAND STATIONS, I WILL HAVE YOU BLOCKED! KNOCK IT OFF, NOW! Vjmlhds 13:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Vjmlhds, I am new to local TV station articles. Up until recently, I have focused on radio station articles, where the established convention is not to list personalities (especially those w/o articles). Moreoever, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television_Stations#Article_structure only suggests "information on its personalities, past and present". Per WP:EMBED, prose is preferred over lists:

'"Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain.

Aside from issues with the list format itself, I don't think every current on air personality at the local Fox affiliate in Cleveland, Ohio merits inclusion in that station's article. Qwyrxian has clued me in on the standard for TV stations, so I'll leave the issue alone for now. Also, as a reminder, please use established conventions when posting on my talk page: Wikipedia:Talk page layout; WP:SHOUT.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

While Vjmhlds's tone is incorrect, the basic message is correct. While lists of alumni must be restricted to only notable former employees (usually those w/own wikipages, occasionally one or two w/good refs), current employees can be listed without references. The current on air staff for station news teams is equivalent to a cast list on a television show or movie, and, as such, is an integral part of the information. The presumption is that the information can be verified either by actually watching the channel, or by the station's website (many of the articles actually maintain a link to the most current station biography page). Since this is a pretty widely held standard on TV station pages, I strongly recommend raising it on WP:WikiProject Television Stations before attempting to remove what does seem to be important info. TV station pages are awash in unsourced, likely even unverifiable info (slogans, history, etc.), so if you want to start cutting that out, I fully support you, but if you call current on air staff listcruft, that would seem to imply all actor lists should be removed from all tv shows. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree with you (Qwyrxian), though I'll leave the issue alone for now. I just don't see how a laundry list of on air news personalities helps readers better understand the significance of a local tv station. I generally focus on radio station articles, where the "widely held standard" is not to list personalities; a written format is preferred. Also, I don't think the cast of a television show (say, that of The Sopranos) is really all that comparable to the news team of the local Fox affiliate in Cleveland, Ohio. Also note that the article I was editing was not for any one "show"; it was for a station which airs a range of programming, some local, some not. Something tells me that if the local news program on WJW were notable enough, it would have its own article. Regardless, thanks for cluing me in on the TV standard.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. It may well be an issue worth pursuing in the future (to be honest, I'd like to remove about 80% of the information in most of the TV station articles for one reason or another--usually, lack of verification), but even drawing a line on some of the simplest things has proven difficult in the face of high levels of resistance from both anonymous disruption and from local editors decrying the "destruction" of their station's page. I recently opened an RfC to remove all unsourced slogans from all tv station articles, and that floundered. Meh, with 3 million articles (and growing) they can't all be good...or even passable. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Vjmlhds post (heading added by Levdr1lostpassword)

You just have to be that guy don't you... The flip happens TOMMOROW!!!!, in just a few hours...you don't have to wait till the very last second. COME ON, ALREADY! Sometimes, I think you just like being a pain in the @$$! Vjmlhds 18:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

If you don't stop with the holier than thou nonsense...You will be blocked! Vjmlhds 19:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

WKRK-FM will remain modern/alt rock until midnight tonight. The format flip is clearly noted in the lead and Sports Radio 92.3 sub-section. Changing the article's format prior to the station itself does Wikipedia readers a disservice.

Also, please use established conventions when posting on my talk page, including section headings so as to avoid mixing separate discussions: Wikipedia:Talk page layout.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Just can't, can you? Vjmlhds 19:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll back off...but beginning tommorow, I don't wanna hear anymore nonsense from you! Vjmlhds 19:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Changes will come at midnight tonight. That's been my intent all along. I've even added a sightly larger version of the new logo for user specifically in the infobox. Let's just not get ahead of ourselves.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Why did you remove my citation, Big Chuck & Little John?

Did you read the article? The citation is in paragraph 11 which confirms the new show. There are ALSO many other articles about this new show on Goggle. Please dont remove this without giving a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.210.66 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't edited Big Chuck and Lil' John since you added your citation. Check the page history again.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Very odd indeed! I did add the citation than came back to see the article again and the citation needed was put back, I looked at the history, seen your user ID as the one that changed it, left you this message, and changed it back to show the citation. I just clicked UNDO to restore the previous revision. Now it's as if this never happened, LOL! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.210.66 (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

WHTZ (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Iris (song)

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WABQ logo (new).png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WABQ logo (new).png. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Cleveland Christmas Music

WDOK, WMJI, and WFHM have all switched to Christmas music from now until after Christmas. All 3 station websites are all decked out in full Xmas regalia, and if you need a 3rd party to verify anything, go to Yes.com and checkout their playlist logs. It's all Christmas music. WDOK and WFHM have been doing this for years, and WMJI is just now getting in on it. It's notable to point out when 3 very different stations in the same city all suspend their normal format to go all Christmas, so leave the notes in the articles. Thank You. Vjmlhds 18:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Setting aside the issue of notability, you are still obligated to verify those claims. Failing that, either add {{Citation needed}} to the unsourced content, or remove it until it is properly sourced.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Here's some more verification--[3] Seriously, it's almost like you want CIA clearance to simply point out the fact that 3 Cleveland radio stations suspended their normal formats to play Christmas music. I've given you the station's websites, YES.com, and now Ohio Media Watch. That's 3 sources...WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?! Vjmlhds 15:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

If your sources do in fact verify the claim, then simply add them to the appropriate articles using acceptable reference formats.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 07:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Sigh--again. I put the OMW story in as a reference for WDOK and WMJI, and I used WFHM's own website as a reference for "The Fish" as right on the front page, they flat out tell us that they're playing all Christmas music. Now go find someone else to pester will you? There's a difference between wanting to stick to code and being a "Wiki Hall Monitor" as it were. Vjmlhds 14:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Please use acceptable reference formats: "Raw links are not recommended in lieu of properly written out citations, even if placed between ref tags..." Also, stick to the content.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, I'm trying to work with you. But you simply can't IGNORE the fact that all these stations have suspended their normal formats for Christmas music. There has to be some sort of acknowledgement that for 6 weeks, WFHM, WDOK, and WMJI are going "off the board" (basically all stunting as it were). The stations' websites themselves are slapping us in the face with the fact they've gone Xmas as soon as we get there. Instead of merely erasing the information, put it in the article in a way that meets Wiki standards, because apparently no matter which way I go, I'm always wrong (at least according to you). Vjmlhds 23:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Clearly your Ohio Media Watch link verifies that Christmas music is being played on both WMJI and WDOK throughout the holiday season. Are those facts notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? Quite frankly, I'm indifferent to whether they are or aren't (i.e., I am not compelled to add that info with a properly sourced citation to either article). However, if you feel compelled to add that info to the WMJI and WDOK articles, then by all means do so. Just be sure to add properly formatted citations. By properly formatted, I mean ref coding without brackets for the URL address -- that way readers can see what it is you're linking to instead of just a number. Or go a step further and use a citation template. Originally, I was willing to simply add {{citation needed}} templates, but you began removing them before I had a chance to finish (see edit here).  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 06:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I will cop to not understanding "Wiki-ese" as fluently as you do. Let's do this...using the OMW link, put it in the WDOK article and reference it in the proper manner. You do it in the proper manner, and then I can see how it's done, so in the future when something like this happens, I'll know how it's done and not have any further problems. Vjmlhds 15:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, I am not compelled to add that information. I appreciate your willingness to cooperate now, though, which is why I will continue to support your idea of adding the holiday music info... but only if you add a properly formatted source. I already tried putting up a {{citation needed}} template when your edits lacked proper sources, but you took that down. Hence, the current situation we find ourselves in... But look, I'm not unreasonable. Just add a properly formatted citation, and we're good. It's not difficult. This is all you have to type: < ref > http://www.your-OMW-source.com < / ref > And don't add brackets on either side of the URL address -- if you do, the source will appear only as a bracketed number in the reference section (e.g., [2]). If you really want to aid Wikipedia readers, use a citation template via Wikipedia:Citation templates. (If you can figure out how to create a user account and edit content, I don't think you'll have any trouble using that page).  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think I have all my ducks in a row. I think the problem is that we both went all or nothing here when it didn't need to be. I had the information (which was sourced), and you had the know-how of how to meet the standards. Thanks for the heads up about how to meet standards. I think I can now go foward without needing my hand held. If we don't have anymore of these little pow-wows before 12/25, let me say Merry-Merry and Happy-Happy. Vjmlhds 15:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. If you want, feel free to put a note in each of their infoboxes (really). Happy Holidays.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 post(s) by User:Vjmlhds moved to original discussion(s)

WP:MULTI. Please see original discussion: User_talk:Vjmlhds#Continued_personal_attacks.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:MULTI. Please see original discussion: User_talk:Vjmlhds#Mistake.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:MULTI. Please see original discussion: User_talk:Vjmlhds#Provide_rationale_for_non-free_images.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

New Message

Hello, Levdr1lp. You have new messages at Vjmlhds's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

New Message

Hello, Levdr1lp. You have new messages at Vjmlhds's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

January 2012 post(s) by User:Vjmlhds moved to original discussion(s)

WP:MULTI. Please see original discussion: User_talk:Vjmlhds#Feedback.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Play by play in prose/Jeff Phelps

2 things: First, I see how you adjusted the sports play by play on the WKNR page into prose. It looks good, and I did the same to the other Cleveland stations that air multiple teams' games. Also, Jeff Phelps is a Cavs employee. He is listed in the Cavs media guide (which is on the Cavs website) along with the other employees. Remember, the team controls their announcers...also being on the Cavs games is what Phelps is best known for, thus that's why it should be noted, rather than just as a generic "Fox Sports Ohio personality". Vjmlhds 16:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss edits made to WKRK-FM, then please discuss them on that article's talk page. See Talk:WKRK-FM#Phelps.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

NE Ohio

Alright, so now that we've embarked on making this article more comprehensive, you have any particular section you'd care to work on? We need something on the economy, and a general histroical narrative. Have at it if you want. I'll tell Jon (Ridinger) as well... Ryecatcher773 (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll contribute when/where I can. To start, I'll go through the roughly 2500+ combined Greater Cleveland and Northeast Ohio "What links here" wikilinks. Jon is probably better suited to constructing the overall historical narrative.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Outstanding. Anything you can contribute will be appreciated. Thank you. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Viacom Logo anyone?

I think you may wish to consider the templates Viacom and Viacom Media Networks. They have the Viacom logo in them.Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 16:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. When you recently edited Public Auditorium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Venue (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Cavs

Lebron James bolting, and the 26 game losing streak are probably the 2 most famous/infamous events in franchise history. How can you not include them in the team's culture and lore section? Vjmlhds 13:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Please keep this discussion on the appropriate talk page at Template talk:Cleveland Cavaliers#Culture and Lore.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

ESPN Cleveland

Good Karma brands their entire Cleveland operation as ESPN Cleveland. This is on top of branding each station individually (ESPN 850 WKNR and ESPN 1540 KNR2). Vjmlhds 19:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. "ESPN Cleveland" refers to Good Karma's "entire Cleveland operation", not any one station. Also, please discuss changes made to articles on article talk pages, not my talk page. Future comments about articles (when discussing on an article talk page is appropriate) will be ignored.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

WMMS logo (April 2012)

On WMMS's website, it looks like they've gone back to the traditional "Buzzard" logo and done away with (or at least de-emphasized) the road sign/orange wing logo. Could you tranfer the current logo to the article, I'm absolutely clueless how to go about that kind of thing. Thanks. Vjmlhds 22:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The station webmaster frequently rotates the image in the upper left corner of the official site's main page; the station Facebook page uses the new logo (a fan page which, in many ways, is now more important than the official site itself); and the station's page/feed on iHeartRadio uses the new logo. There's also a new Rover billboard up in at least two locations which uses the new logo (I-90/OH-2 westbound near the Cleveland foodbank, I-71 southbound between Downtown and Hopkins Airport). Most importantly — and let's be clear on this point — there is not a single reliable source to verify that WMMS has changed its primary logo. So to answer your question, no. And if you're unsure how exactly to upload images, start with Wikipedia:Uploading images. Feel free to ask questions, though I'll probably direct you to an administrator.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I saw what User 76 was saying about you. You and me have gone round and round and then some, but what that guy did was uncalled for. That was horrible. Vjmlhds 02:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I have already contacted another user, User:Calabe1992, regarding this situation. I could be wrong, but the anonymous editor you refer to ("that guy") seems to share a number of similarities with you: use of personal attacks (examples here, here, and here); general unwillingness to discuss issues on talk pages; living in the Cleveland area; etc. If in fact you are this anonymous editor, please edit under your own account. Thank you.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

That guy was actually my 19 year old cousin who was using my computer...he saw my wiki page and all my edits, and he thought he was being cute to go on pages I usually go on. He confessed it to me because he was laughing about what he did. Levdr, we argue about content all the time, but I don't go THERE with personal stuff. This is what happens when you let people use your stuff. Bobby "The Brain" Heenan was right--family is like fish...after three days, they stink! I am so sorry C.J. did this...God this crap blows! Vjmlhds 02:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll take you on your word this time.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:BROTHER. I seriously doubt your story. In short, quit the personal attacks and the misuse of the IP. Calabe1992 02:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I know...it looks bad, but I just got plain old punked by someone who was being supposedly funny, by being an idiot and not realizing/caring it come back on me. All I know is there won't be a next time, because my laptop is now off limits to people that aren't me. Vjmlhds 02:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

So your cousin has been using your IP even to make edits like these? Awfully similar to your edits. Calabe1992 03:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Levdr1lp. You have new messages at Calabe1992's talk page.
Message added 02:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Calabe1992 02:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

WMMS/99X

I re-edited a few sections on WMMS. Even though 99X doesn't represent 100.7 entirely, it should still be referenced in the infobox since it's on HD2 and has a website and translator. Same with the Template:Cleveland Radio|Cleveland radio template (link to templates as I have below). --Radiokid1010 (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The new Cleveland translator W256BT is represented in the infobox — in the "Translator(s)" field; I've also included information in the lead. As for {{Cleveland Radio}}, please remember that navboxes generally only list articles, not topics within articles (especially one already represented — in this case, WMMS). WP:NAVBOX  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand 99.1 does not yet have an article, but it should still be represented in the template as it is currently being broadcast via HD2. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

"It should" is not an acceptable substitute for Wikipedia editing guidelines.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, "should" is too strong of a word. But considering that 99.1 is still primarily broadcasting, doesn't that qualify for it to be added? --Radiokid1010 (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The issue is much simpler than you're are making it out to be: 1. per WP:NAVBOX, only a subject *with its own article* can be included in a navbox, and 2. per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Radio_Stations#Rebroadcaster_templates, "Translators should be included in the parent station's article and should not have their own page." Also, I've noticed that you have a history of being blocked for failing to follow general WP guidelines and policy; and that you're not a member of WP:WPRS (simply an indication that you are not entirely familiar with our wikiproject's editing guidelines).  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I try my best. And I've learned alot since the incidents in 2009. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Good. Keep at it.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Concerning 99X, maybe you would know the answer to this question; Could 99.1 eventually get a set of regular call letters instead of the mishmash W256BT it has now, or (since it's really a translator) is it stuck with what it has? Vjmlhds (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

If you format your question properly per WP:TALK and WP:INDENT, I'll tell you.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Count the number of colons (:) used in the comment above yours. Add one. Add text. Sign.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for formatting your question properly. This aids other editors if/when they join this conversation and provides proper context to the discussion. Regarding your question — I don't really know, but my guess is no. My understanding is that radio translators (FX stations) cannot simply switch to full power FM stations; their purpose is to extend the range of "real" analog stations, nothing more. Clear Channel is using this low power translator like a "real" analog station b/c of the current lack of regulation; it's a loophole stations are taking advantage of all across the country. This station enhances both the WMMS and iHeartRadio brands on the cheap. I seriously doubt CC has the desire and/or the resources to invest in a seventh full-power radio station in the Cleveland market, no matter how cheap it is to plug an ipod into a transmitter. Advertisers just aren't buying air time for the alternative demographic. They're broke and drowning in debt.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Vjmlhds May 2012

Nice job putting the new article together. Vjmlhds 21:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. That said, please follow standard talk page guidelines. WP:TALK Future posts failing to conform will be ignored.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

WMMS and the Browns

I'm sorry... I actually forgot HOW to respond on here... hadn't done it for awhile. o.O

As per the infobox, it was likely a typo on my part that I forgot to correct a long time ago and never thought to do so until you brought it up.

Here's the thing: I don't know as to what year WMMS started carry Browns games in a simulcast with WHK. It had to have been at some point in the early-mid 70s because there were issues about outlying Browns affiliates close to the market - such as WBEA-FM Elyria, then a sister to WEOL who dropped the affiliation because of encroachment from WMMS (this was from reading WBEA/WEOL's corporate cousin, the Elyria Chronicle-Telegram, through their PDF archives... it was a few years ago, so I can't remember off the top of my head what URL they are posted at, or if it's still there - it's more to buttress my original point of view). Nor would I know if WMMS' tenure as a simulcast of WHK's games was ever a continuous one.

But for me to say that it was in 1968 probably owed more to WMMS' early heavily simulcasting of WHK during overnights and (possibly) weekends. They **might** have carried a few games as a result, but probably not enough to merit being a co-flagship. No matter how it's sliced, it's still wrong. My apologies.

As per the exact year, I'm presuming that would have to be resolved somewhere in the Browns media guides. The Browns had a complex radio history in their early years, going from one station to another and another.

That being said, I don't dispute what Mike O. has in Radio Daze (I've met him in person before - he's a really awesome guy). There are some other former staffers at WMMS I could contact as well if needed. Again, my apologies... I'm more than a bit rusty with the Wiki talk pages.

-Nate- Nathan Obral (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I also temporarily blocked out (using the <! -- -- > style code) that infobox until this is resolved. Nathan Obral (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

1) Consider reviewing Help:Using talk pages. 2) Per talk page guidelines, please respond to messages I post on your talk page on your talk page. Likewise, respond to messages I post on my talk page on my talk page. 3) I searched the Chronicle-Telegram archive via NewspaperARCHIVE.com and couldn't find anything to support that WMMS aired the Browns at any time from 1968 to 1984. In regards to WBEA/107.3 FM, that station's/WEOL's program director was asked by WHK in 1971 to broadcast the Browns on WBEA instead of WEOL. The WEOL/WBEA program director said no to Browns on WBEA on FM. WHK said no to the Browns on WEOL on AM. The result was no Browns in Elyria on WEOL or WBEA for the 1971 and 1972 seasons; instead, WEOL aired Bengals games. By 1973, WHK again allowed WEOL to carry the Browns and dropped the WBEA issue. Note that just as WEOL/WBEA did not want to air the Browns on FM in Elyria, neither did WHK want to air the Browns on FM in Cleveland (WMMS referred to in 1971 article as "WHK's FM outlet"). That's all I could find. Since I can't find anything to verify the Browns aired on WMMS from 1968 to 1984, I've removed that content from the WMMS article.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

WMMS/OMW

Seriously...you're gonna start questioning OMW's credibility just because he picked up my "man cave" term to describe WMMS' rock/talk/sports mix? You wouldn't have done that if somebody else came up with the term, I'd bet you anything. Vjmlhds 02:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Please follow standard talk page guidelines. If you're responding to an ongoing discussion related to WMMS content, please respond in the appropriate section on the WMMS talk page (WP:TALK). Future posts failing to conform to standard talk page guidelines will be ignored. Thank you.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 05:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to put this as kindly as I can...sometimes I think you just enjoy turning this into a urinating contest (I could have used another term, but I kept it clean). Vjmlhds 13:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The following edit has been moved to User_talk:Vjmlhds#Clarification to keep that discussion on a single talk page. (WP:MULTI) Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't wish to bicker anymore. Let's just agree to disagree on this...I'm big picture guy, you're miuntae guy, so there's always gonna be a little head-butting in our philosophies, but you're right in continuing back and forth helps no one. On this one...I'll stand down for the sake of keeping peace. And for the record, I'm not OMW. OMW has no agendas. He just reports news from Cleveland media, which quite frankly no one else bothers with anymore. Vjmlhds 13:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ohio Media Watch

You went through every TV and radio station and removed every reference from Ohio Media Watch?!?! Jesus, dude...Don't tell me it was due to WP:THISTHATORTHEOTHER. You were perfectly fine with OMW until the "man cave" thing last week, and now all of a sudden you got a bug up your butt about it. You can throw all the wiki-ese at me you want about it, but it really does come off like you threw a hissy-fit and wanted to teach OMW a lesson. Perception is reality. Vjmlhds 00:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I've had doubts about the reliability of ohiomediawatch.wordpress.com for a long time now. Your latest "mancave" edits just brought the issue out into the open. And please, try to comment on content, not editors.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The way you personally attacked the blogger himself on the R-I boards suggests more than just 'doubts'. (And no, I haven't been a formal part of the blog for a year. Real life, including a job (SHOCK!!) has come first.) You are vengeful and want to ruin the blogger's career. Grow up. Nathan Obral (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by the "R-I boards", but your comments constitute a personal attack and are impermissible here. Also, please explain why you've been reverting so many of Levdr1's edits and calling them vandalism? It's also not appropriate to label other editor's contributions as vandalism unless it's clear that they are.

As for the reliability of OHM, Levdr1, if you believe it's unreliable, please start a topic at WP:RSN.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

View here. I refer to RadioDiscussions.com as "the R-I Boards" ostensibly because they were part of Radio-Info.com until August, when they were spun off. In that thread, Levdr1 went on a personal vendetta to "out" the identity of the primary blogger for Ohio Media Watch, which suggests his past behavior is more personal and vindictive than anything else. Nathan Obral (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23- will do. Thanks. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest anyone following this discussion to first review Talk:WMMS#Reliable_sources. Thank you. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

When you personally attack someone for no reason, that crosses the line. Remember that. Nathan Obral (talk) 03:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Nathan Obral, I am not attacking anyone. I question the reliability of the Ohio Media Watch blog for use on Wikipedia. Outside Wikipedia, I have been curious who exactly the site's primary contributor is, so I started a discussion at RadioDiscussions.com like other users also have. And if you want to know who I am, you could just ask. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 03:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it is crossing the line. What you pulled on that chat board was despicable and disgusting. Apparently you flunked the part of journalism where it said "protecting one's sources." Or you just have it in to ruin the career of an anonymous blogger, huh? You deserve no sympathy or respect from me. Nathan Obral (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

If we're talking journalism, then reporters are generally supposed to identify themselves; in the example you're giving, Ohio Media Watch is the reporter, not the source. Regardless, I'm not really sure that has anything to do with the topic, i.e. the reliability of Ohio Media Watch. When you (Nathan Obral) write something on a blog, you cannot use it as a reliable source on Wikipedia. When you (Nathan Obral) work for a radio station, you cannot edit that station's article and not expect someone to raise the issue of conflict-of-interest (as I did). And when an anonymous blogger is not subject to editorial oversight, that too is unreliable for the purposes of Wikipedia. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't "work for" the radio station. I'm a contract employee and have never drawn a single paycheck from the station's operators. That is a fact. But that doesn't sound as sexy as saying, "I'm the station's webmaster." Oh, and it's not my primary job. Nathan Obral (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

That's still a pretty clear conflict of interest. At the very least you should declare any connections, professional or otherwise, to articles you edit. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

And you should probably disregard anything that Crain's Cleveland Business and Cleveland Scene have ever printed, because after all, they have acknowledged Ohio Media Watch as a reliable source multiple times. So go purge anything those two respected print sources have been linked to from Wikipedia then, if we are to take your line of reasoning seriously. This is nothing more than a prolonged personal attack against one person and his blog. And that you drag me into this mess isn't surprising. Nathan Obral (talk) 04:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

That would fill up an entire page on Wikipedia. And it's unnecessary. How many other radio station pages have been editing on by IT guys from the stations themselves? I had edited that article long before I was hired as a contract employee by the station's owner, who had no direct involvement with the station itself (they were run via LMAs that run out next week). Nathan Obral (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Both Crain's and Scene have reporters who identify themselves and are subject to editorial oversight. But you do have a point. I plan to start a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard per Bbb23's suggestion, and I will certainly note that Ohio Media Watch is referenced in various local media. That still doesn't change the fact the Ohio Media Watch blog, which you yourself contribute to, is a questionable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Contributed to. I quietly gave it up back in February because I didn't have time. Whatever posts I made, I tried to cite the hell out of it through any and all sources possible. I no longer had the time to do it. Stop this crappy persecution of an innocent person because they are doing something you just don't like. News flash: the alternative media is here and thriving, and print sources are going to be dying a slow, painful death. Nathan Obral (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not about some "crappy persecution". This discussion is about the reliability of an amateur blog. Obviously there are reliable blogs on the Internet. WaitingForNextYear.com and ElevenWarriors.com are two great examples in the sports world. In politics, there's FiveThirtyEight.com, which currently operates via NYTimes.com, but began as a separate blog authored by stats guru Nate Silver. I'm not questioning online sources in general. I'm questioning the reliable of your blog: it's amateur, it's largely anonymous, and there is no editorial oversight. How were readers even supposed to know you stopped contributing? Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 04:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I hid it just so it could blend in with the rest of the blog. I left at the same time the main blogger had to go on a long hiatus, so it was simultaneous. I had and have been offered a chance to take over the blog, and have considered it. I might just do so if your actions on RadioDiscussions forced the main blogger to give it up. But you should also look at Dave Hughes' DCRTV, Scott Fybush's Northeast Radio Watch and Lance Venta's RadioInsight, all of which are solo blogs with no editorial oversight, but are all highly regarded and respected as reputable news sources. That's what Ohio Media Watch was/is intended to be; odd thing is, the main blogger is in a position where he/she could not reveal his/her identity. You could have gone through any other method possible to ask for their identity rather than suddenly dump on some staffer for a radio station. Nathan Obral (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

For the record, if I actually took over for the blog, I would probably bring aboard people to assist me in the publication, of which I would serve as the editor. Similar style to WaitingForNextYear. If that happened, I would relinquish being on Wikipedia for obvious reasons. I have mulled over that possibility for awhile, but the timing and the opportunity has not presented itself yet. Nathan Obral (talk) 05:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Look, I'm not an expert on all Wikipedia guidelines and policy. I think the media blogs you named qualify as reliable sources because the contributors aren't anonymous and they each support ads. And I'm sure there are variations of editorial oversight depending on the case. But if it's clearly missing, as in the case of the Ohio Media Watch blog, there needs to be some other kind of attribution. There must be some kind of accountability. Otherwise the "source" is just rumor. Anonymous blogs do readers a disservice. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 05:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on the appropriate noticeboard at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Ohio_Media_Watch. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 07:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• The ONLY issue here of any real importance is whether OHM may be used as a source in Wikipedia articles. Instead of focusing on each other's history, conduct, actions in real life, actions offf-wiki, etc., focus only on that. Levdr has posted at WP:RSN. I will add a comment there, but only in the hopes of keeping the discuss there focused as well. I need to leave room for myself to act administratively if appropriate, which means I'm not going to get into the content/sourcing dispute itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems clear this source does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for verifiability, see WP:BLOGS, or external links, see WP:ELNO #4 and #11. Piriczki (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Skratch 'N Sniff

Are my changes okay with you? I was working on a draft several months ago and was afraid to submit it. But you beat me to it and I see the article has been accepted.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Content looks fine (at Skratch 'N Sniff). You may want to find another source for the Ryker quote. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't sure such a quote would be allowed, but it's such a good quote I hated to not include it. Thanks, and thanks for your work. I didn't have to do much.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem. And I don't plan to remove the quote. Others might. Just a heads up. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

User space deletion

Hey, Levdr1, I noticed on recent changes that you marked a page in your userspace for deletion as G7. That's totally fine and will work without problems, but there's another tag, U1, that's specifically for deletion of userspace pages; it might help you get a faster response time. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I never noticed that before. I guess I never made it past the "General" section. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Random question...

...But are you a member of the JCL/SCL? I come in peace, but I'm just curious to see if the article can be improved from its current state. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I am familiar with both the Junior and Senior Classical Leagues. In regards to content, I don't see any reason to list past officers in the National Junior Classical League article — they're just not very notable. Now if you find reliable sources which specifically name past officers (more than just passing references), and why they are important to the general subject of NJCL, then maybe you could add such content in prose form. Otherwise, I don't see this happening. ... And in the future, please discuss article content on article talk pages. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm a member of the SCL and was just wondering if there was another person out there who knows the ins and outs of what goes on at various events (i.e., how these things are going to be referenced). Also, is there any way that you could fix your signature, as it is incredibly hard to read. Thanks, and I hope you have a great day! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 08:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

If there's a reliable source out there — online, print, or some other medium — I'll find it. Google news and Google books are always good places to start. As for my signature, how exactly is it hard to read? Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 08:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

All I see is black, unless I move the screen to within a foot of my face to see the text clearly. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe there is something wrong with your screen. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It could be, but if I'm seeing it, then others might have an issue with it as well. Still, dark on dark might not be helpful for those on the Wiki who are getting older. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 08:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Bright white text. Bright red text. Black background. There is no "dark on dark". And yours is the first and only complaint I've received in a year. Again, maybe it's your screen. Maybe you're using an older operating system or web browser. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Windows 7, IE 9. I figured it out though, as it seems to be something you did recently to it. Here is a screenshot. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 09:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh right IE doesn't recognize shortened hex codes still I think. That would be it. (stalking cause Kevin asked me, as a visually impaired user, to verify his issue and I couldn't replicate it) sonia (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Full hex then. Thanks. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Start date of WEBN Cincinnati

The starting date of radio station WEBN in Cincinnati was today, August 30, in 1967, and not August 31, as published in the source used by Wikipedia. I know this to be accurate because I recently contacted Frank Wood Jr. (son of the original owner and manager of the station from 1969 into the 1990s) in order to confirm this and other facts about the station's history when talking on the air today about the station's 45th birthday. If you wish to contact Mr. Wood to confirm the date, please let me know and I will send you his e-mail address. Wikithings (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Wikithings

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."

Whether you talked to someone with ties to the station is irrelevant. You still must provide a reliable source to verify your claim (Google News is always a good place to start). "Because I contacted someone and he/she said so" is not sufficient. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know enough of Wikipedia's interface to continue this attempt to correct the entry. Your trust of an old printed page, your suggestion that Google News is a more reliable source than the people who were in the studio the day WEBN was launched, and your refusal of an offer to contact them, convinces me that this is not worth pursuing. The incorrect date will stand. The many other inaccuracies in the article are clearly not worth bringing up. I'll warn our audience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikithings (talk • contribs) 01:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

If you plan to edit on Wikipedia with any regularity, you really ought to familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia "interface". I suggest you start with Wikipedia:Five pillars. Regarding the Broadcasting source, yes, I trust it more than nothing. In the absence of another reliable source, it's the only thing to go on. Like it or not, "I talked to someone who knows therefore I'm right" is not considered reliable on Wikipedia. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkers Magazine recognition

In my opinion, when somebody like Talkers magazine (which is almost like a bible for the radio industry) ranks one of your local shows among the top 100 nationally in either general talk (Mike Trivisonno - WTAM) or sports talk (Really Big Show - WKNR, and Kiley & Booms - WKRK), it's worthy of a sentence in the article. I'm not saying we should smack people over the head with it, but a brief mention of it with the source to back it up is reasonable I think. Vjmlhds 21:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Funny that the Talkers.com slogan just happens to be "The Bible of Talk Radio and New Talk Media". As for the rankings, I'm not sure how notable Cleveland market shows ranking in the Top 100 is (not one cracks the Top 70) when the Cleveland market itself ranks 30th in overall size. Feels a bit non-NPOV. That said, I guess I'm okay with including these rankings for now, provided that the actual ranking is used for each show/personality; "among the Top 100" is too vague. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

God's honest truth, I didn't even know that was their slogan. The fact that so few Cleveland based shows are actually on the list, makes the couple that are kind of stick out more. Vjmlhds 02:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The way you adjusted the articles in question are cool by me...no complaints. Vjmlhds 02:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

"... that so few... are actually on the list, makes the couple that are kind of stick out more." You're reaching. One would expect shows in New York, LA, and Chicago to ranker higher than those in Cleveland. But so do shows in Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Nashville, and Raleigh — all smaller markets. Relative to market size, Cleveland ranking below 70 isn't particularly notable. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 02:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

In all honesty, it says something about the overall quality of Cleveland radio that we're so low on the list. But my whole point was it doesn't hurt anything to give a brief mention that a show did make the list. Vjmlhds 02:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No, the rankings do not say anything about the overall quality of Cleveland radio. They only say something about two Cleveland sports talk shows and one Cleveland afternoon talk show host: "2012 Heavy Hundred of Sports Talk" ranks The Really Big Show 72nd and Kiley & Booms 74th; and "2012 Heavy Hundred" ranks Mike Trivisonno 73rd. That's it. WP:ORIGINAL Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 03:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

WMMS logo

I'll leave it up to you to make the call, but: It's been about a year now (if not more) since WMMS has resumed use of the Buzzard logo as their primary logo (in the upper left corner of their home page in the standard issue format of all Clear Channel stations). The only change they've made in putting a Browns helmet on him now that it's football season. There are few if any references to the road sign logo, and even on the WMMS facebook page they've reverted back to the Buzzard logo (and again just recently putting a Browns helmet on him) and just like their website, there are no signs of the road sign logo. We had this discussion a while back, but as time has gone on, it looks like they're phasing out the road sign to put more emphasis on the Buzzard. Vjmlhds 23:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The Buzzard-with-Browns-helmet logo is in use on WMMS.com, as has been the case during the Browns season the last few years, so that alone does not indicate anything has changed. As for Facebook, the new logo was still in use only weeks ago; like WMMS.com, the Buzzard-with-Browns-helmet logo is in use now because it's Browns season. That doesn't indicate anything has changed either — the station is simply promoting itself as the radio flagship for the Browns during Browns season like it does every year. As for Clear Channel websites, note that the new WMMS logo is used on the main pages of all other Clear Channel Cleveland station sites ("other stations" groupings), and also the Clear Channel Cleveland recruitment page. WMMS also continues to use the new logo on the iHeartRadio online feed, a site url which is arguably more important than the official site itself. Lastly, the station has said nothing about changing its logo. The same basic format, a rock/talk hybrid, has remained unchanged for nearly five years. Accordingly, WMMS has made no clear attempt to shift its image since then. No reliable third-party publication has reported otherwise. Nothing has changed. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

OK...I saw what you were referencing. The road sign is still the official logo, and the Buzzard is now like a mascot rather than the logo. I can live with that. Vjmlhds 12:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

M105 logo

I uploaded File:Wwwm_fm_logo.jpg for use in the article classic rock but I'm uncertain if I've covered all the fair use rationale. I see you added other radio station logos so if you see anything missing would you mind adding to it? Thank you for any assistance you can offer. I wanted to use it in the WMJI article too but there doesn't appear to be enough room unless the M105 section is expanded. Piriczki (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Piriczki. Your fair use rationale seems thorough enough to me, though I mostly add current and former station logos to station articles using the standard {{Non-free use rationale logo}} template. You might want to consider adding the M105 logo to the WMJI article instead of Classic rock just to be sure. There's enough room so long as you place it on the left side of the appropriate history section, and you'd have a much stronger case for the file's inclusion there. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 05:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for inserting the URL template into some of the city articles. I knew there was a template for that but could not remember what it was called! --JonRidinger (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

WERE

I've added numerous sources to back up not only the incoming Cumulus programming, but also verifying the rest of WERE's schedule. And I made it a concious point not to adress you directly in the edit summary ("Here's the source verifying...", and not "Here's your source..." like I would have done previously). However you did single me out directly by saying that you wouldn't have had a problem with the changes, but because it was me you felt it necessary to revert my work. You didn't like it when I adressed you directly in edit summaries, (and I'm making an effort not to anymore), so I ask you reciprocate the same courtesy to me. Vjmlhds 13:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't addressing you. I referred to you so that other editors would know whose edits I reverted. Don't even try to equate the two. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

When you do that, you're implying that I'm an untrustworthy eidtor...as if to say "Watch this guy, he's shady." Especially when you add comments like "...because he has a history of..." Again, I'm making a concerted effort to stay inbounds in regards to wiki etiquette. I forgot to add the source, OK, just say that in the edit summary and add the citation needed tag. You yourself said if it were anybody else, you would have done just that, but because it was me, you threw in a little extra $0.02. Just felt it was a little cheap shot, that's all. Vjmlhds 20:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You have a history of failing to use reliable sources to verify your claims. I have already tried to communicate this to you – repeatedly. At some point your contributions become disruptive. And you didn't just "forgot to add the source" in this case. You "forgot" to add multiple sources. You also used an anonymous blog that you already know does not qualify as a reliable source. You have no one to blame here but yourself. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

How were my contributions disruptive? I dug up every source I could think of to add to the article. You have to assume good faith with me just like you'd do with anybody else. I'm not going to argue anymore. I'm gonna take the high road and say good night. Vjmlhds 03:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You can earn back the good faith you've lost by using reliable sources the first time you add content. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

SPI

You are welcome to comment on this this sockpuppet investigation based on your observations at a recent AfD. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I will leave it to those more experienced with this sort of thing. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 03:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Gib Shanley

Instead of "edit warring", I'll explain my reasoning for including Shanley here, and you can do whatever with it. Basically, in 1994 Malrite Communications (who owned WOIO) signed a local marketing agreement with Cannel Communications who owned WUAB. Essentially they took over all operations at 43. When 19 started their newscasts in Feb. 1995, they absorbed the WUAB news team in to the then new "CBS 19" news team. All personalities were part of 1 news team. At this time Gib Shanley primarily did the 10'O Clock news sportscasts on 43, while Jeff Phelps did the 6 and 11 sports on 19, but one would fill in for the other if one was out, and frequently Shanley would do a sports commentary on 19. Long story short, WOIO absorbed the WUAB news team into their fold in '94, so anybody who was at 43 then automatically became part of 19's fledgling news team...including Shanley. Vjmlhds 14:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

None of that changes the fact you need a reliable source to verify your claims. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thinking about it, to be honest, anything he did on WOIO came at the tail end of his career, and is really just icing on the cake. So instead, I created an alumni section on the WUAB article, and included him there. Vjmlhds 15:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You *still* need to add a reliable source to verify that claim. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I found a late 80's era promotional photo for 43's 10:00 News featuring Shanley, which should do the trick. As an aside, check out Romona Robinson's crazy 1989 'do--Big Hair Era indeed. Vjmlhds 17:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Deep apologies

I was working on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ew0sdc and accidentally blocked you as one of the socks, using an automated script. I cannot apologise enough for my error. If anyone ever raises it as an issue, please just point to this notices and say 'useless admin Elen of the Roads blocked me by mistake' Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Is there any way to remove this block record? Levdr1lostpassword / talk 01:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it is technically possible (see WP:REVDEL but I'm not sure it's within policy. I will consult with the Arbitration Committee. I'm sure really where one has made a total SNAFU like this, and blocked the wrong person entirely (not even a false positive - the script throws up a list of every username on the SPI page except the filing party, whether they were listed as suspects or included in comments, and it was just plain ticking the wrong box) it ought to be only fair to be able to remove it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Unless you think there is a better option, I will contact an administrator at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 01:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Leave it with me. I've asked my Arb colleagues to confirm it's OK to delete it, I'm just waiting for a reply. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 02:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The response I've had is that currently the policy does not support using revdel to delete an entry in a block log. In any case, it apparently only strikes out the action and reason, it doesn't remove the entire entry, so it would still show as a block. I cannot apologise enough. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for looking into this. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 04:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

WHKW/Bowling Geen

You were right about WHKW still being an affiliate of Bowling Green (a quick check of the Falcons radio affiliate list confirmed it) despite it's affiliation with Michigan. What must have happened was that the U of M and BGSU played at the same time, and the Wolverines took priority. Vjmlhds 14:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not about whether I was right or wrong. It's about you removing content w/o any justification to do so (in this case, WHKW's affiliation w/ BGSU football). Stop allowing your unsupported assumptions determine how and why you edit content. Whether or not WHKW airs Michigan football is completely unrelated to whether or not WHKW airs Bowling Green football. Unless you find a reliable source which supports your claim, do not alter the basic substance of content. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 02:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I admitted I made a mistake. I thought WHKW dumped BGSU in favor of the U of M, and it turns out they didn't. I was wrong. I'm not the first, and won't be the last to come here and make an honest mistake. Vjmlhds 02:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not about a single edit. This is about a pattern of edits. Often you make changes to articles without properly supporting your claims. Your edit to WHKW was just the latest example. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 00:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

WMMS/Tribe

I'll leave it up to consensus as to whether I should add the note about the Tribe or not. But I must say this, though...I looked up WP:Notability, and that pretains more to whether something is worthy of having a whole entire article written about it. There's a difference between that and what I did. If I wanted to write a whole article about Indians coverage on WMMS, then WP:Notability applies, because that isn't worthy of it's own article nor should it be. But adding a quick little note at the end of an existing article is a different animal. Vjmlhds 14:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Last May, an editor changed the wording of the lead to WP:Notability, and there was barely any discussion of that change; this would represent a considerable shift in how a core WP policy is defined, interpreted, and used. That said, the policy is what it is (for now), so I will stop referring to it the way I did in a WMMS edit summary here. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. As for the Indians content, please review WP:INDISCRIMINATE:

"...merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

Levdr1lostpassword / talk 07:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The above previous conversation was just you and me going back and forth, and what I'm looking for here is consensus. Either thumbs up or thumbs down and I'll live with the outcome (much better than simply edit/re-edit). Also, I read WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and again I think it doesn't really apply. If I wrote 3 paragraphs detailing Tribe games on the Buzzard, then that would be one thing, but a quick sentnece reading "WMMS airs the Indians when there are conflicts with the Cavs on WTAM" isn't beating a dead horse or belaboring the point. Think of it almost like when you write a letter (when people still sat down with pen and paper) and you add a P.S. All the Tribe stuff is is a quick P.S., not anything that dominates the article. Vjmlhds 15:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

You're conveniently ignoring that this has already been discussed at Talk:WMMS#Cavs/Tribe. The only other editor to weigh in on the issue said the subject of sports coverage has "a slight ring of puffery" to it. That hardly sounds like an endorsement of your position. As for WP:INDISCRIMINATE, what exactly don't you understand? Just because something is true, or even verified, that doesn't mean it should be included in the article. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING:

"In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject."

In other words, some things about WMMS simply don't belong in the WMMS article, no matter how accurate or verifiable they are. There are limits to everything, even on Wikipedia. The fact WMMS occasionally airs Indians games as a backup to sister WTAM is really not that important, not in terms of the overall subject. It's trivial and excessive. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 21:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Radio Disney logo

File names really aren't a problem in most cases, and when they are, the proper course of action is generally to move the file, rather than uploading it under a new name. In situations like the Radio Disney logo, it's actually counterproductive to ask for the original name to be deleted — deleting a page only increases linkrot, so when two files are identical, the older one should be kept. Nyttend (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:WAPS (FM) logo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:WAPS (FM) logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited WCPN, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lorain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

WHKW start date

I am going to revert it because there is only ONE true start date: the one from 1924 when the LICENSE was first issued. The callsign/format/whatever change is still listed in the article!!! Stereorock (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is only one "first air date" for the station overall (i.e., the frequency), but the infobox field does not differentiate between first station air date and first callsign air date. "First air date" alone is ambiguous; moreover, neither Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations nor Template talk:Infobox radio station have anything definitive to say on the matter. More often than not, especially for older stations, the first use of the station callsign is treated as the "first air date" for the station. And nearly all of the infobox content is also found in the body of the article, so that's not really a convincing argument for excluding something. Also, as a side, I have found many cases where a station's first broadcast occurs *after* the license is issued. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 19:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, please try not to shout. WP:CAPSLOCK Levdr1lostpassword / talk 19:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I was using caps for illustrative purposes. Stereorock (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I imagine the license was issued before the 1924 date. That would be found in the DOC records on the FCC database. As for the format/callsign change, that is not the first airdate, even though a few other pages do include it. WHKW's first broadcast as WHKW may have been 2005 but the license itself and the station are much older. That original airdate is the one to put in that section. What you are defending is just a callsign or format (I forget which) change & therefore is covered in the article itself. The callsign change is also covered on the former callsign line. But, most stations' infoboxes do not have any other date other than the day that the station first took to the airwaves. Therefore, WHKW's original airdate is solely 1924 (unless other data is found that shows otherwise). Stereorock (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The FCC online database only goes back to the late 1970s. And many station articles include more than one "first air date" to differentiate between the first air date for the station and the first air date for the callsign currently in use. Moreover, the current callsign is often what the general public and reliable sources associate with as "the station". Levdr1lostpassword / talk 22:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The FCC database does indeed go back that far. There are other sources which can be found to be reasonably accurate as well. If you do a search for "Broadcasting Yearbook" & put in a year to 1935, that book will show up and is somewhat searchable (100 pages at a time; States beginning with A-M, N-Z, that sort of thing). As for the articles which use more than one airdate, I've found that to be in the minority and there may be a case where it is needed to differentiate for some reason (like a station swap where 2 stations exchange calls, frequencies, histories, formats, etc.). So, there are a few cases in which it is needed (WPRO (AM) for example, where 2 stations combined into 1). WHKW seems to have a linear history with the exception of when it called itself WHK. But WHK went back to its original frequency in, I think, 2005. Station histories are often changed by the station to reflect whatever marketing campaign is underway. WPRO-FM in Providence says it's been Top 40 since 1974, which is true. However, they came on in April 1948. I reverted the page but have asked for clarification on the WP:WPRS talk page. Unfortunately, it seems questions do not get answered as swiftly as they used to over there. I did say I and another user were going back & forth about this. I couldn't remember your full handle nor do I know how to do the link thing which alerts you to it, to which I apologize. Please know it is there if you scroll down all the way, past my question on what's going on with the translator box. Stereorock (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Please specify how I may access callsign data via the FCC online database prior to the late 1970s. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 22:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I am about to leave for home which I will arrive at in about an hour. [4] should take you to the July 1923 Radio Service Bulletin. If not, it is accessible from the WSAR page & I will try to get the exact site location for you a little later on. There is a page on the FCC site where it lists Radio Service Bulletins from about 1915-1930 or so. They show which stations were licensed by the Dept. of Commerce & F.R.C. in the previous month. It is useful for determining an airdate to some degree (WSAR claims September 1921 as its first airdate but was not issued a D.O.C. license until June 1923). You'll be able to get to other R.S.B.s from the 7/1923 one. Happy viewing! Stereorock (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That direct url does not help; the FCC website is in a state of transition, and none of the search fields in that link are working. My point is that there is no direct way to access the first air date for stations that went on air before the late 1970s via a station inquiry (like the WHKW inquiry). Determining a first air date "to some degree" isn't very helpful, nor is it directly relevant to the discussion here. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 23:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

WKYC

You know, you could actually help integrate the reference into the article, because it is a good reference, and it shouldn't just be thrown out to the curb. There's no law that says you can't sit down and try to find ways to use the reference to better meet wiki standards, since obviously you didn't approve of the way I did it. You either have all the TV and radio station pages on your watchlist, or you're trolling me, or something, because you always seem to be right on my heels every time I edit one of those pages. So instead of just simply reverting my edits and saying "No Soup For You!", you could do something constructive and maybe find a better way to utilize a perfectly good reference. Otherwise, it really comes off more like you just wanting to play wiki-police. Vjmlhds 03:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You added the reference. If you feel so strongly about including it, then add it in a more appropriate way – one which *directly* verifies content. Don't blame me if you're unwilling to do the necessary work. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 04:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not unwilling to do anything, but if (according to you anyway) the way I did it isn't up to snuff, the least you could do is maybe point out where I could utitlise the reference better. I added the reference because all the info is "straight from the horse's mouth" so to speak, and I thought it would lay to rest any doubts TV 3's history. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort, where one editor might pick up where another may have missed something. You don't have to do any of the "leg work" so to speak, but maybe saying something like..."this would work better here" or "try this there". The way you approach it, it just looks from afar that you enjoy being an article "c***blocker" more than assisting those that (according to you) may not be 100% wiki-fied. Vjmlhds 04:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You placed a single reference at the start of a very long history section, all by itself and without any text preceding it. To me, that's simply not acceptable. I'm sure other editors would agree. Bear in mind that I'm not stopping you from adding the source to the article per se; I'm stopping to you from arbitrarily and lazily placing a general reference in the article without going through the content to find just what exactly it verifies to place it accordingly. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 04:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Question about edits

I had a question about this edit of yours at Cleveland. Are you sure that format is correct? Because when I look it up in sources, such as [5], I see the previous format. Best, Spencer^T♦C 06:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You're right... technically. The sources used in the Cleveland article use apostrophe–n–apostrophe. But there are many sources on the subject, and exact spelling for the nickname varies (as it does for rock and roll). Some spellings even use Capitol in place of Capital. As I stated in my edit summary, I only made the change for readability issues; if you feel so compelled, feel free to revert my edit. Rock and roll, rock 'n roll, rock-n-roll, rock 'n' roll, rock'n'roll, rock & roll... these are all simply alternate spellings. The same goes for the nickname. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 06:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Mind your own business

My discussions with Qwyrxian had nothing to do with you, so I'd appriciate if you keep your nose out of my affairs. I don't go poking around in your discussions. Your little crack about "I see little constructive in what Vjmlhds has to offer" is really condescending. Who are you to be a judge of what's constructive and what isn't? So everything you add is gold, and what I add is garbage...is that what you're getting at? One could consider that a violation of WP:PERSONAL if one wanted to push it that far. It almost appears as if you're monitoring me (at least my talk page), just waiting to pounce at a chance to kick dirt in my face if you think I'm in trouble somehow. You're not into wrestling (because you never contribute to wrestling articles), so your $0.02 had nothing to do with the article...you were just trying to get into Qwyrxian's ear to drop the hammer on me because of our past. I just feel as though that you were playing a little dirty, and it wasn't appreciated. Vjmlhds 13:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Commenting on a user's contributions, as I did here, does not violate WP:PERSONAL. I meant what I said. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 18:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

And I mean what I say...I know you were trolling my talk page. How else would you have come across my dicussion with Qwyrxian? And don't play scemantics...you were commenting about me specifically, and not any particular contribution I made. That IS WP:PERSONAL. If you have an issue with a contribution I make to an article, that's fair game, as that's what the talk pages are for. But clearly, you were going after me personally, trying to influence Qwyrxian when he put the notion of blocking me out there...which you could only know about by seeing it on my talk page. I could easily recommend you get blocked for doing this, but I don't wanna be that guy...just mind your Ps and Qs, and we'll be OK. Vjmlhds 19:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been "trolling" your talk page. Rather, I've been watching Qwyrxian's talk page ever since you posted this. The irony is that had you kept the original discussion on your own talk page, I wouldn't have commented on the matter. And I have never commented on you, Vjmlhds, the editor. I have only ever commented on your edits and edit history. I have provided specifics examples where you have blatantly disregarded basic editing policy and guidelines, and I'm prepared to provide more if necessary. I'm confident that if anyone needs to worry about getting blocked, it's you. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 03:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk page stalkers are always welcome on my talk page, so long as they don't violate other behavioral rules. Levdr1lostpassword's comment was acceptable, and as you can see, did not sway my opinion. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Qwyrxian. You and others are welcome to stalk my talk page, too. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 04:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Seeing that Qwyrxian is a top man, if he says you stayed in bounds, then I'll accept it. But that last line about "if anyone should worry about getting blocked it's you" was not really called for. It's snarky stuff like that that pushes the envelope regarding personal attacks. Vjmlhds 04:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Vjmlhds, I said exactly what I meant to say exactly how I meant to say it. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 04:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so let's all go back to our respective talk pages, relax, have a cup of tea, and get back to editing constructively. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I suppose I'm to blame for inserting myself into the WWE discussion in the first place. I interact with Vjmlhds on a regular basis, often in Cleveland/Akron area media articles, so I felt compelled to share my impressions of his editing habits and interactions with other users (incidentally, I came across this gem last night while straightening up my talk page). ... Unless I'm directly involved, I'll stay out of future discussions on Vjmlhds. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 04:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Userpages

Sorry, I misperceived that page as a press release (which, you must admit, it somewhat resembles). I've restored it.

Again, my apologies. DS (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I suppose the page does somewhat resemble a press release. I am at the earliest stages of assembling content on the subject (Clear Channel's national programming platform), most of which is only available via press release. I had no intention of spamming the userspace. Sorry about the confusion. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 03:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I've tried accessing the restored page but it still shows deleted. Is there usually some lag time after restoring a page? Levdr1lostpassword / talk 03:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

That's odd - I distinctly remember restoring the page last night, but apparently it didn't take. It's definitely back now, though. Sorry for the inconvenience. DS (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 21:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Browns Radio

I found this article on the Browns' website. About halfway down, it states that the radio deal will be in place in time for the NFL Draft on April 25. This would indicate that the May 1st date isn't the end-all be-all, and that all parties want to have the appropriate Is and Ts dotted and crossed by Draft day. So while the specific day everything becomes officially official is unknown, the fact that they came out publically saying it'll be done by draft time should warrant getting rid of all the qualifiers and whatnot in the station articles. Vjmlhds 21:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Fine. Instead of May 1, wait until April 25. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 21:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

But what if the ink is dry on all the contracts before then? It could be tomorrow for all we know. To be rigid on that (or any) specific date really isn't that necessary. Vjmlhds 21:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, no. The stations could not have made it any clearer one their respective sites online or through on-air updates. The "triplecast" deal does not begin until May 1. Only a single source supports the NFL Draft start date. Sometimes it is necessary to take multiple sources into account. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 21:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The Browns website now has offically listed their 2013 draft coverage. They couldn't air it (especially under the Browns Radio Network banner) if a deal wasn't in place. Vjmlhds 22:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You do not know what these stations can air before the start of this agreement. Not unless you can provide a reliable source to support your claim. All that matters here is what the sources say: that the deal does not begin until May 1. The station sites and on-air feeds could not make it any more clear. Same goes for the *main page* on the Browns official website. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 22:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I have added a note on the shared coverage (only WKRK-FM and WKNR, no WNCX apparently) for the NFL Draft which airs prior to the start of this new broadcast arrangement. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 22:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Aviles/Rayburn

In the articles of both players, Baseball Reference is referenced, and it shows both Aviles and Rayburn played multiple positions last year, and when one plays multiple positions in baseball, it makes them a utility player, so listing them in just one position is incorrect, as the stats show otherwise. Vjmlhds 04:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hi Levdr1lostpassword, I just wanted to let you know that I have granted the reviewer userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, please contact me and I will remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:WABQ logo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:WABQ logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Voice tracked DJs

I'm not gonna make too big of a deal out of this, but I would like to know why you object to mentioning Michael J or Rob Kruz. I'm with you about not needing to name every weekend schlub, but guys that are on every day that the station does promote should get a mention, no? Vjmlhds 20:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

VT personalities are not sufficiently notable in this context. They change too frequently and have no real connection to the station or market. Knowing the name of a VT personality also doesn't really help readers understand the overall subject. As a side note, please consider basing more of your contributions on available coverage, rather than finding coverage to support your contributions. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 20:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Reverting

I noticed in one of your comments at ANI, you wrote that you're "reverting any contributions this editor makes which lack verification in articles I monitor daily on my watchlist." On the basis of which Wikipedia policy are you reverting these edits? --Dweller (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN at Wikipedia:Verifiability. I revert and/or modify ({{citation needed}}, etc.) . The "any contributions" quote is only recent, and *only* with what (I thought anyway) was Qwyrxian's approval. Maybe it was sarcasm? I'm increasingly confused. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 22:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not clear if you're reverting everything you see that has no citation, or only things, as the policy states, that are "challenged or likely to be challenged". If you're just blindly reverting everything, I think you should stop doing that and apologise. Either way, I think your best bet is to have a sensible discussion with the other user. I'm happy to help. --Dweller (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

From WP:BURDEN, I have been using specifically "any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed" and "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material". Again, I was under the impression that Owyrxian approved this (i.e., reverting unverified contributions by Vjmlhds who has a history of doing just that, among other questionable forms of conduct IMHO). And Qwyrxian is an administrator like yourself. My goal is to edit within the policies and guidelines that govern Wikipedia. But nobody's perfect. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 23:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but that's in the context of the preceding clause in the policy that it refers to material "challenged or likely to be challenged". You need to read the whole thing. --Dweller (talk) 08:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I respect your role as an administrator. That's why I withdrew my block request from the noticeboard. However, I only posted the block request because I was following the advice of Qwyrxian – another administrator. I think that, for now at least, I will wait until you and Qwyrxian reach some kind of consensus regarding this before I adjust how I read WP:VERIFY. Please also bear in mind that Vjmlhds is an unusual case. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 14:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

WFHM-FM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to WCLV

WHK (AM) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to WCLV

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Browns affiliation

I've added sources verifying that while officially/technically/legally WKNR/WKRK can't call themselves "home of the Browns" until May 1, the actual affiliation has begun by both stations airing draft coverage under the Browns Radio Network banner. Vjmlhds 04:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

WKNR, WKRK-FM, and the Browns have all had daily opportunities in recent weeks to communicate to local radio listeners when their new partnership begins. Every time a date is specified, it's May 1st. For whatever reason, both stations, as well as the team, have made it abundantly clear that the deal has not yet started. Equating the airing of limited draft coverage with the start of the radio deal is original research. Content in the lead will more than suffice until May 1st. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 05:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's not original research as much as it's getting signals crossed. It's more a case of the left hand and the right hand saying 2 different things. On one hand they're screaming "May 1!", on the other they're already promoting official Browns programming prior to the date (and I had a source backing me up... so don't throw WP:OR at me. Now an incorrect source or an incorrect understanding of the source on my part, I'll listen to that.) As to the reason for the May 1 thing, I think that's due to legal mumbo-jumbo from WTAM/WMMS, but that's neither here nor there. Vjmlhds 05:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

You provided a source verifying that each station aired limited coverage of the draft. However, that same source did *not* say anything about draft coverage as it relates to the start date of this new broadcasting partnership. So, yes, you were adding original research WP:OR – you drew your own conclusion w/o providing a source to "directly support" your claim. If that's not synthesis, then I don't know what is: "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." I really don't see how your edits would've done anything other than confuse readers. The leads of both articles were already quite clear; neither article required any significant changes before May 1st. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 17:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Whatever...It's 50 some hours away from it being a moot point anyway. Just remember...Let he who is without sin cast the first stone (John 8:7) Vjmlhds 17:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC).

"All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty together again." I can quote random sayings, too, but I prefer to quote relevant policies and guidelines. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 18:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I quoted the Bible, you quoted a nursery rhyme. I was trying to make a point, you were just being snarky. I've dropped it, you should do the same. Vjmlhds 20:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

... only you didn't just "drop it". You decided to quote gospel at the end of your post (?!), as if somehow religious teachings have anything to do with editing on Wikipedia (they don't). Do us a favor: in the future, keep thy religion to thyself. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 23:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there a mouse in your pocket? If not, then who is this "us" you speak of? It's very presumptuous on your part to speak for all Wikipedians. And I did drop the matter of the Browns affiliation. What this is, is you just feeling the need to get the last word in. Vjmlhds 02:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

By "us", I was referring to myself and you (and no one else). So, again, do *us* a favor and please refrain from spreading your personal religious views here. And you can expect a reply any time you post on my talk page. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 02:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I apologise if you took offense to my use of scripture. The intent wasn't to "shove religion down anyone's throat", merely to make a point about flawed people (as we all are to one degree or another) being too obsessed with the flaws of another. Vjmlhds 02:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Just stick to content and leave religion out of this. As for "flaws" and being "too obsessed", I treat you no differently than I treat any other editors I encounter. What makes you different is your editing pattern: habitually adding, removing, or modifying content without providing reliable sources to verify your claims to articles I monitor daily (at least until recently), and criticizing others for pointing it out. That said, I've noticed that over the last several days you have been adding sources to various Northeast Ohio media articles. That's good. Keep at it and you're far less likely to hear from me. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 03:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

WKNR and the Browns have actually been in business together for nearly 2 years due to 850 airing the thinly veiled team infomercial known as Cleveland Browns Daily. Even though WTAM/WMMS were the flagships in 2011 and 2012, they wouldn't carry the show due to conflicts with their powerhouse afternoon drive hosts (Mike Trivisonno and Alan Cox respecitvely), and the Browns insisted on 6 p.m. (the tail end of PM drive) so they worked out a deal with WKNR to carry the show. Who knows...this is maybe what got their foot in the door to be able to snag the AM flagship rights. But regardless of that, the team and the station have indeed been working together for awhile now, thus there was indeed an affiliation in place prior to the magical May 1 date (we were both sleeping on this one). Vjmlhds 23:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

As I already made clear on the WKNR page today, the team affiliation through CBD was clearly overlooked. I'm not sure it has much to do with this discussion, however, particularly as it relates to WKRK-FM, which has had no such affiliation. You still failed to provide a reliable source to verify your claims. In the case of the WKNR infobox, you just happened to stumble upon a completely different rationale for your edit. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 01:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I was wrong about WKRK, and I left that alone. All I was trying to do above was show that WKNR had been doing business with the Browns for awhile now through CBD, which we both overlooked before...I wasn't arguing with you, just pointing out something we both missed. Vjmlhds 03:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. What I'm saying, however, is that your point has nothing to do with my original concern, specifically that you were making changes to content w/o adding reliable sources to verify your claims. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 16:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Not giving you a hard time about it, but I just can't help but to laugh because you reverted a couple of my edits because I added too many references. Vjmlhds 02:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Three things. First, the content on the Browns deal was already adequately sourced in the body of each article; moreover, the content was neither controversial nor likely to be challenged. You may want to review the manual of style on that. Secondly, if you are going to break up the flow of a discussion on my talk page, then please use the {{Outdent}} template as I have with your post above. Lastly, could you at least consider adding a link to your talk page in your signature? Levdr1lostpassword / talk 04:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

1. I just wanted to make sure my bases were covered with the extra references (I've since read WP:LEADCITE) 2. I only did what I did because I didn't want my post to start halfway across the page, now I'll know different in the future. 3. How's this - Vjmlhds 14:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC) (talk)

Sounds good. Thank you for adding a link to your talk page in your signature (although you may want to move the timestamp to the end as some users have bots which automatically archive old discussions on their talk pages based on timestamp dates). Levdr1lostpassword / talk 21:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I used a different source, which wasn't a problem, but just out of curiosity (to maybe see where I went wrong), why wasn't WKNR's homepage a good source, when it clearly said up at the top that it was "Home of the Cleveland Browns"...I figured that was cut and dry. (Talk) Vjmlhds 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The WKNR official site main page logo/graphic may change at any time. Better to use a source like a press release or news story which won't change w/ time. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 19:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

re: Edit link placement

On Meta: m:Change to section edit links. This has been linked at WP:VPM a week ago, which is where en.wp has apparently decided to receive important global notifications. Matma Rex talk 18:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I just added the "short snippet of CSS" to move the edit link back to the right. Is there any way to restore the optional edit link for the lead section? Levdr1lostpassword / talk 19:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It will work again as soon as somebody responds to the {{editprotected}} request I left at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-edittop.js a few days ago. Matma Rex talk 19:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Stadium names

It would be better to ask that question generally, instead of directing it to me or any other specific editor. Doing so would allow others to participate in the discussion. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 04:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you. Occasionally it is necessary to address a specific editor in a group discussion. I directed my question at you because you raised the issue. Nothing is preventing other editors from weighing in on that aspect of the overall discussion. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 05:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

That is why we all have talk pages. There are two methods used for decision making, consensus and parliamentary. Neither permit directing comments to other participants. With consensus, the method that we use, comments are always directed to the group. With parliamentary, comments are always directed to the moderator, or "speaker". The reason for both is the same. Apteva (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I still have to disagree with you. Unless you can point to a specific policy or guideline which prohibits addressing specific editors in group discussions, I have no intention of changing how I operate. And I think you may be confusing a post which *addresses* another editor with a post which *comments* on another editor. Only the latter violates WP:TPYES. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 14:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I can certainly put it there. It is just a part of consensus 101. Address the group, not any individual. Apteva (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You can assert your position all you want, but in the absence of any policy or guideline which clearly demonstrates how exactly I'm violating "consensus 101", I don't intend to change how I interact with other editors. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 15:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a set of rules and policies. A little bit of common sense needs to be applied as well. Apteva (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Your idea of "common sense" is your own. All editors, however, edit according to WP policy and guidelines, and unless you can tell me how I have violated either, I have no intention changing how I interact in discussions. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 16:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

"Rock" Template

It looks like it's 4-0 in favor of deleting the "Rock" template. It's been a few days, and nobody's stepped up to try to save it. So if you want to go ahead and delete it, I don't think anybody's feelings will be hurt too much. (talk) Vjmlhds 19:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

1. The discussion needs to remain open for seven days. 2. Closing the discussion, and performing any action based on consensus reached within that discussion, are jobs for an administrator. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 21:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

'Twas unaware...but, unless something changes drastically, it does look like the template will be deleted. (talk) Vjmlhds 21:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Well what do you know...I was right about the Rock template. Don't know about Al Pawlowski though. (talk) Vjmlhds 02:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Purple Star
		Awarded by Vjmlhds as a gesture of good faith in my continuing effort to stay within Wikipedia standards, and to (at least attempt to) atone for past personal attacks. (talk) Vjmlhds 15:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if I overstepped my bounds. I wanted to award you with a pair of barnstars (one as an olive branch/token of goodwill, the other for work you have done). My only intent was to put them front and center for everyone to see (as well as the Iron Star service award which you qualified for based on your time of sevice/amount of edits). No ill will was meant, in fact quite the opposite. But if you say your user page is off limits, I'll respect that...again no malice was intedned. (Talk) Vjmlhds 22:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Al Pawlowski

Why should Al Pawlowski be deleted? I am not the one who created it. I created Jeff Phelps instead. Ashbeckjonathan 16:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You were contacted because you recently contributed to the Pawlowski article. The article was nominated for deletion because, in my view, the subject fails to meet general notability guidelines as detailed in WP:BIO. The Pawlowski discussion has nothing to do with Jeff Phelps. Please refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Pawlowski if you have any further questions. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 19:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Just because I contributed to Al Pawlowski, doesn't mean that I created it! I'm not responding to you again! Ashbeckjonathan 00:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's be clear: I never said you created the article. You did contribute to it, however, very recently, and that's why I invited you to participate in the discussion. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 00:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not contribute to Al Pawlowski as much. I added the category Association football commentators because he called MISL games for ESPN/ESPN2 and for the Cleveland Crunch as well as the Cleveland Force. Besides, I had a contributed to many different articles like Bob Kelley, Drew Bontadelli, Ron Weber, Tim Moreland, and stuff like that. Ashbeckjonathan 00:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how those articles have anything to do w/ the Pawlowski AFD. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 03:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Gtwfan52 issue

With all due respect, I think you had a bit too much of an itchy trigger finger to go running to Qwryxian when Gtwfan52 thought I was edit warring. Gtw realized soon after he had made an error, retracted his accusation, and apologised to me for it (it's all on my talk page). It wouldn't hurt to let things play out a litle before rushing to judgements. I noticed on Q's talk page that Gtw was sniping at you a little bit over this, so that's why I wanted to say my piece here. (talk) Vjmlhds 17:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I was doing you a favor. I contacted Qwyrxian, an administrator who is already familiar with your situation, rather than posting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Regardless, there's an even better way to avoid this type of situation in the future: stop edit-warring. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 17:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

1. I wasn't edit warring, I was merely doing what Gtw requested in finding sources for the awards Phelps (which by the way I had in the article from the beginning, but Gtw didn't trust them) 2. I was also trying to add sources to show notability (which is what the AfD was all about to start with). If anybody was edit warring (if you want to call it that) it was Gtw, as no matter how I tried to fufill his requests, he just rejected them all and reverted it back his way. By his own admission, Gtw said that he doesn't trust a lot of things on the internet (which I'll again refer you to my talk page and you can see for yourself), so he took it upon himself to decide what was and wasn't an acceptable source. 3. I don't appreciate the crack about "stop edit warring". If the guy that (as it turned out falsely) accused me realized that wasn't what I was doing and did everything he could to retract and apologize for it, then you could at least acknowledge that on this one I was innocent as well instead of looking down your nose at me and giving me a lecture. (talk) Vjmlhds 18:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't really care about the specifics here. All that matters is that another editor claimed that you were engaged in an edit-war; that's enough for me. Even if you weren't actually edit-warring (which, given your history, is a little hard to believe), that would be all the more reason to notify an admin familiar with your situation, rather than posting at the relevant noticeboard. Qwyrxian strikes me as very fair and someone who won't rush to judgment. If, as you say, you did nothing wrong, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 18:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It's those little snide remarks - "given your history, it's hard to believe" - that make one assume that you're not following WP:Good Faith. Gtw has plainly said that he made the accusation in error, so why is it that you are still talking to me as if I did something unseemly? Also, didn't you tell Qwyrxian awhile back that unless you were involved directly, you wouldn't involve yourself in my business? Seems to me that you always want to jump in with both feet anytime I'm involved in a dispute, whether you're involved or not...and I've been making it a point to try to avoid any issues with you at any costs. (talk) Vjmlhds 19:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing "snide" in stating that you have been blocked three times for edit-warring (because it's true), and that you've come close to getting blocked a fourth time (both for edit-warring and for habitually ignoring WP:VERIFY). As for the level of my involvement in this case, I nominated the article for deletion in the first place, and have been monitoring it on my watch list ever since (note that I am also participating in a separate discussion on the article's talk page). I made the "not directly involved" comment following a professional wrestling dispute, a topic I normally don't cover. So, please, stop splitting hairs. I still find it hard to believe you weren't edit-warring, and there really isn't anything you can say here to make me think otherwise. I also don't find anything convincing about Gtwfan52 dropping the issue, either, as he was the other half of that edit-war. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 19:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's get down to brass tax here - Who are you to be so judgmental of others? Your opinion, when it gets right down to it, doesn't matter. It's not your place to go running to Qwyrxian or to an Administrative board everytime that there may be an issue with something I do. Gtw did everything but use the actual word on Q's talk page, but he pretty much called you a snitch. He himself told you that you were over-stepping what was nedded in the situation. Just as you say nothing can change your mind about whether or not I was involved in an edit war (which I wasn't...when the accuser retracts the accusation, that's the end of it). Nothing can change my mind about the fact that you have a personal vendetta against me, and everytime you even think you smell blood, you go into mega shark-mode. I try to be nice to you, I award you barnstars, I ask you for your opinions on articles in a cordial matter, and at the end of the day, it was all a waste of time, because you just can't help yourself when it comes to trying to some how some way stick it to me. You routinely violate WP:AGF and WP:WITCHHUNT when it comes to me, and it just shows me (and others, as Gtw has noted that there's more to this than a simple edit war complaint) you won't be happy unless I get the hammer thrown down on me. (talk) Vjmlhds 20:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Have I accused you of edit-warring? No. Is there reason to think that, given your edit history, when an editor accuses you of edit-warring that you are, in fact, edit-warring? Yes. And since you don't think I should share my observations from an article *on my watch list* with an administrator familiar with your situation, when is it appropriate for me to do so? Remember: you sought my advice regarding the Jeff Phelps article. You set this into motion. And, yes, you repeatedly reverted Gtwfan52's edits at the same page. And I could be wrong, but I'm sure name-calling ("snitch"), something else you have a history of, constitutes a personal attack. You can accuse me of a lack of good-faith all you want, but the reality here is that I'm doing precisely what Qwyrxian has recommended I do: alert him if/when problems arise. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 20:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

1. I did not call you a snitch, I merely said that Gtw accused you of being one on Q's talk page ("tattling to an admin"), do not accuse me of a personal attack when I did not do it. 2. I was trying to find sources that were satisfactory for Gtw regarding Phelps' awards (it wasn't case of not having sources, but Gtw not liking the ones I had - so WP:Verify wasn't the issue), which is what he asked me to do. So it wasn't a case of going "tit-for-tat" like in an edit war, but more like "Is this what you're looking for?" Gtw realized what I was trying to do, that's why he retracted and apologized for his edit warring accusation. 3. You weren't making an observation on an article, you were just trying to see if I could get in trouble. 4. I did come to you and ask politely about your opinion on the article, you put it in the AfD list, and then I tried to find sources to demonstrate notability. Gtw then came out of left field and began questioning the sources for the awards Phelps had won. So then I had a double whammy on my hands -- trying to find sources to demonstrate notability for you, and trying to find sources to "super-duper" verify the awards for Gtw. Gtw mistook my multiple edits for edit warring, but then when he stepped back and saw what I was trying to do, he retracted and apologised. You on the other hand refuse to see it that way, and it really does almost seem like you want to see me get in trouble. Gtw said that he felt like there was more than meets the eye to all this back and forth, and he's right. What this is is a personal attack on me, and at least shoot straight about it. (talk) Vjmlhds 21:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC).

You applied "snitch" to Gtwfan52's post. I can't think of how it would ever be appropriate to use "snitch" in reference to another editor, even in the way you have, per WP:PERSONAL. As for when you sought my advice on the Phelps article, I *did* provide input. I said there didn't appear to be adequate coverage from reliable, independent sources to establish notability. You never replied. I then performed a thorough online search in an attempt to establish Phelps' notability. I couldn't find sufficient coverage, and I notified you about my concern. You never replied to this *second* attempt on my part to provide input. I then opened the AFD-- and short of unsupported assertions ("more meat-on-the-bones", etc.), you still haven't offered any substantive argument for why the article should be kept. As for contacting Qwyrxian, I stand by what I did. It's now up to him to determine whether or not you were edit-warring, not me. That said, I reviewed the Phelps edit history, and all I can say is that it sure looks like edit-warring to me. Now maybe I'm wrong, but my view doesn't really mean anything. That's why I notified an admin familiar with the situation. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 21:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Take it up with Gtw, he was the one who got on your case about tattling to the administrator...all I did was tell you that that's what he did ("tattle" and "snitch" mean the same thing). I saw how you responded regarding my questions about the article, so then I went to try to find sources to satisfy the requirement for WP:NOTABILITY...I didn't know I had to talk to you first. If anything, Gtw "shot first and asked questions later" regarding his edit warring accusation. If the guy that brought it up to start with can realize he was in error and (very politely I might add) make amends, why is now all of a sudden you're so hell-bent on nailing me? All I can say is WP:AGF, WP:WITCHHUNT, and WP:PERSONAL (talk) Vjmlhds 21:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no issue with Grwfan52. And name-calling is name-calling -- Comment on content, not on the contributor. "Snitch" is a derogatory slang term, and it's not appropriate to label editors as such... at least it's not appropriate, IMHO, for use by those contributors who assume good faith. And I am not "hell-bent on nailin [you]". I alerted an administrator familiar with your situation that you were apparently (note I used the phrase "appears to be" on Qwyrxian's talk page) edit-warring in an I article I was watching after I had nominated the page for deletion. I watch a lot of media-related pages from the Cleveland area, and if someone else accuses you of edit-warring on one of those pages, I am probably going to either: contact an admin; or post at the relevant noticeboard. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 22:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Or here's option 3 - stay out of it unless it concerns you directly. Nobody died and made you my watcher, and given your current behavior towards me, this can be thought of as a violation of WP:HA (talk) Vjmlhds 22:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"Directly" is a limitation I placed on myself, so I'll interpret how exactly I define it. When you are accused of edit-warring on a page that I have on my watch list (at your request), *and* that I recently nominated for deletion, that's "directly" enough for me. And before you make any further accusations, you may want to review WP:AOHA. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 22:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

And one other thing - What do you mean by "my situation"...Are you implying I'm some kind of special case that needs extra attention? Are you saying I'm not like any other regular Wiki editor? That I need to have red flags put on me? That right there is the exact opposite of assuming good faith, and a violation of WP:PERSONAL. You are making me out to be the Frankenstein monster of Wikipedia, and I don't appreicate it one bit. (User talk:Vjmlhds) Vjmlhds 22:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I think I outlined what I mean by your "situation" in the recent ANI. You have long term issues following the same policies and guidelines we are all obligated to follow. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 22:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

		A beer on me!
		Hoist one with me, and we have a deal (talk) Vjmlhds 03:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Uhh...you're supposed to raise the beer back at me...I didn't know if you knew or not. It's to symbolize a toast. (talk) Vjmlhds 03:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Cheers. Sorry for the delay (real world tasks). Levdr1lostpassword / talk 03:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Atta boy! (User talk:Vjmlhds) Vjmlhds 03:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Jeff Phelps

To get back to the article that started this whole crazy roller coaster ride - I think I found something which should satisfy WP:NOTABILITY. Here's the National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Association website. This should work to provide a source (that isn't his Fox Sports Ohio or 92.3 The Fan bio) to demonstrate notability. I have added this reference to the article, as well as pointing it out in the AfD. (talk) Vjmlhds 04:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you have established JP's notability. Already withdrew nomination b/f your message. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 04:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Civility Barnstar
		Awarded by Vjmlhds on May 25, 2013 for extending the olive branch to start a fresh cooperative partnership on Wikipedia. That really was a cool thing you did the other day. (Vjmlhds)

WTF?!?

Uh...I need some outside eyes to look at something. I noticed on the Paul Keels article some edits that User:Ashbeckjonathan made, and told him very politely on his talk page about how some of the things he did violated WP:VERIFY (no references) and WP:COPY (word-for-word copy of Keels bio), and that in the future to clean that stuff up. You should see how he responded on my talk page. Would I be in my rights if he pulled that again to request a block? (talk) Vjmlhds 02:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

His conduct is clearly inappropriate and violates WP:CIVIL. I would recommend that you keep cool, maintain civility, and try to ignore the personal attacks. If they continue, contact me again, and I will leave a message on his talk page, and then we'll go from there. Contact an administrator only if his edits become seriously disruptive. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 03:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, he has since apologised. Look, I know I'm no angel, but at least I've never threatened to spit in anybody's face...that was bad. (talk) Vjmlhds 03:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

One more thing...was I right to point out his issues with WP:Verify/WP:COPY, or did I overstep my bounds there? (talk) Vjmlhds 03:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That was cyber bullying. There should have been no reason for me to do stuff like that. That was stupid for me. I am a Christian and I should know better than that. One thing I need to do is to keep comments to myself and just keep my mouth shout. A consequence for it could be Blocked from editing. Other consequences could be kicked off the computer, receive a suspension, detention, have the police contacted, or possibly even expulsion if it were at school. I also need to learn from my mistakes and learn not to do these things again. We had a presentation about cyber bullying on April 5th and forgot about it. There was no reason for me to that. Ashbeckjonathan 03:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Vjmlhds- I would try to avoid telling another editor how to edit whenever possible. If an editor adds unverified content, you could always add a {{citation needed}} or {{refimprove}} template. Ashbeck- it wouldn't hurt to better familiarize yourself w/ the site's basic conduct guidelines. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 03:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that the best thing to do is move on and forget about what I did yesterday. Ashbeckjonathan 13:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the best thing for you to do is to stop the personal attacks. Threatening to "spit in Vjmlhds' face" and labeling his posts "stupid" and "idiotic" demonstrate a clear lack of civility on your part. Rudeness like that is potentially disruptive and will not be tolerated. Again, I suggest you better familiarize yourself with the site's basic behavioral guidelines, including WP:TPG and WP:EQ. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 17:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I think I need to do better than that. Besides, I think you should stop communicating with me for a total time of 12 weeks, except for invitations for nominations for deletions, so I don't cause another rumor. Again, I ask that you would stop talking to me for a total time of 12 weeks except for invitations for nominations for deletions. Thank you. Ashbeckjonathan 19:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages are necessary-- they exist to help editors reach consensus, clarify positions, and settle disputes. As such, I have no reason to stop communicating with you. I will drop *this* issue, however, if you stop using personal attacks against Vjmlhds. Levdr1lp / talk 19:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, you are right again. I will stop using personal attacks against any other user including Vjmhlhds. I think that personal attacks make people feel bad. I think I am the foolish one. I just think that I could use a punishment, such as blocked from editing, the next time it happens. --Ashbeckjonathan 19:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Continue the personal attacks, and you will very likely get blocked. Stop the personal attacks, and this issue goes away. Levdr1lp / talk 20:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The method of my madness

You probably saw that I've edited a good number of Cleveland media types in the similar manner all day today...there's a reason for that. I don't want any Jeff Phelps type issues (most importantly WP:NOTABLITY) plaguing any other articles involving local media personalities. So I made sure to include any and all important accolades they've accumulated in their careers to make sure they're all "Wiki-worthy" and pass the notability smell test, and plugged in other references that may have been needed just to make double sure. (talk) Vjmlhds 21:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

A subject's notability is not based on how well-sourced its article is but rather the amount and depth of real-world coverage available. There are plenty of notable subjects without an article, and likewise, there are plenty of subjects with articles which lack sufficient notability. That said, I only nominated Jeff Phelps after you brought his article to my attention. Levdr1lp / talk 21:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Cavs template

I saw the talk page for the template to refresh myself after you undid my edit. The plain old truth is that I forgot all about going through this last year. My bad. (talk) Vjmlhds 03:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I just think that, in general, navoxes should be limited to articles, and that position seems to be supported by the relevant guidelines. Levdr1lp / talk 04:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Stu Klitenic for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether if Stu Klitenic should be deleted or not. The conversation will be held at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stu Klitenic until a consensus is held and everyone is welcome to join the conversation. However, do not remove the AfD message on the top of the page. Ashbeckjonathan 03:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Retirement

Hey, how's it going? Just to remind you, I am going to retire for a while starting today until I am ready to come back to Wikipedia. Ashbeckjonathan 21:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

WLMB

Hey... Would you mind doing me a favor (as I am completely clueless about how to do it)...could you upload the new logo for WLMB-TV 40 in Toledo for me and add it to the page? They've changed it from the logo currently on the article, and I'm pulling my hair out trying to figure out how to do it. Much obliged. (Talk) Vjmlhds 21:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. See File:WLMB logo.png and WLMB. In return, could you consider -- in your signature -- placing your talk page link after your user page link (and before the timestamp)? It's pretty standard. Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 10:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Mucho gracias, amigo. And to return the favor, I'll do this for you. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for re-ordering your signature, though I hope you are doing this for all users and just me. Put another way, I hope you're not manually inserting your talk page link, but rather using a changed format for your signature under Preferences. Also, if you are going to use the old WLMB logo, you should remove the speedy delete tag I added. Levdr1lp / talk 16:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy delete - gone. And I use the same signature for everybody. My pea-brain isn't built for memorizing different signatures for different people...one signature fits all. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

WEWS

I know what I did...I slipped up. I got on a roll when I was adding in all the new info (references and all) regarding the lottery switching stations, and I allowed a bad habit to creep back in. I'm trying real hard to shake off my past wiki-demons...I'm 99% there...please don't allow one small stumble off the wagon to undo all the good will that I've been trying to build up. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt -- just don't make me regret it. I have no desire to revisit the same old issues. Levdr1lp / talk 18:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You won't regret it. Just like in everyday life, you get in a groove, and do something absent-mindedly that later on somebody calls you on, and you think "Man...why did I do that?". That's all this was, a scatterbrained flub on my part...the wiki equivalent to locking your keys in the car. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

TWC Sports Channel

I was under the impression that TWC Sports Channel was similar to Fox Sports Ohio and STO. There are TWC Sports Channels sprouting up all around the country, and I thought it was the same sort of arrangement like how a lot of cities have their own Fox Sports (insert region here), Comcast Sports Net, or Root Sports regional networks.

TWC SC Ohio does have a lot of Cleveland based and targeted programming, which is why I figured it was OK to add it. I was unaware of it being based in Columbus, but on the other hand it is a state-wide targeted network.

I didn't come to argue, if it's no-go, it's no-go and I'm fine with it, but I just wanted to explain why I added it so there's no misunderstandings.

Vjmlhds (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Media in Cleveland should be limited to outlets based out of Cleveland or the Cleveland market. Fox Sports Ohio is based out of Broadview Heights. Levdr1lp / talk 18:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. As I said I was unware of TWC SC being based in Columbus, and now I'll be a little more alert about things like this going forward. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but I just felt the need to speak my peace about it just so you wouldn't think "Uh-oh...there goes Vjmlhds causing trouble again". I'd like to think anyway that I've been trying to earn a little good faith around here, so as not to have any edit looked at automatically with suspicion. So that's why if there's anything that I do that I wind up getting questioned on, I'll explain myself just to clear the air. I'd much rather do that then go back to the old ways. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Relax. Sometimes I may revert or modify one of your edits, but that doesn't mean you've done anything wrong. Your good-faith contributions do not go unnoticed. Levdr1lp / talk 19:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Response

Fine, but which information do you want me to disclose? My new account or my old account? WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Please keep this discussion on your talk page. WP:MULTI Levdr1lp / talk 16:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Levdr1lp. You have new messages at WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Levdr1lp. You have new messages at WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Levdr1lp. You have new messages at WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Stay off my talk page

You too, I have had this with Vjhml and I am starting to lose my patience with the both of you, stay off my talk page and I will remove your messages and his messages from my talk page. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I will continue to post on your talk page if and when I find it necessary to do so. If you are unable to follow this site's basic policies, guidelines, and conventions -- such as discussing relevant concerns w/ your fellow editors in a civil manner -- then perhaps Wikipedia isn't for you. WP:CIR Levdr1lp / talk 01:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, this isn't for me. But do I care? No. I care about LIFE. Don't you get it? Life, including Church! WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Three more things, I suggest Wikipedia better improve itself or it will have lots of problems; the other thing is this by the way, I chose to be a Wikipedian because that gives me something to do when I have nothing else to do, that includes chores and school homework. I also suggest that it is not always necessary to post messages because that disturbs me. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Explaining

I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. Cheers, theonesean 14:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. In the future, if I post on your talk page, please respond on *your* talk page. Levdr1lp / talk 00:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense?

A question about your comments regarding my edits to the WKNR/WKRK/WNCX articles...Why did you call me referring to 92.3/98.5 as co-FM flagship stations nonsense? When the games were on WTAM/WMMS, we (meaning Wikipedia) referred to them as the AM and FM flagship stations for the Browns respectively, with no problems. I thought that the same thing applied here...WKNR is the AM flagship while the two CBS stations shared the FM side.

I'm not gonna do all kinds of reverting, because it's not that big of a deal, but I would like some clarification. I have to be honest about one thing though...this new arrangement the Browns now have is kinda convoluted and screwy. (I know...the comment didn't relate to the article, but that's kinda why I edited the article the way I did...to try to as simply as I could explain why WKNR could air this, why WKRK could air that). Vjmlhds (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for my word choice. I intended no ill-will. My point was that "co-FM flagship" is overly complicated and potentially (and needlessly) confuses readers. In other words, there was nothing wrong w/ the wording before you changed it. I know it's a weird situation -- three stations owned by two different companies, one of which owns two FMs -- but best to keep things simple and not try to equate w/ the former nice-and-tidy Clear Channel arrangement (one AM, one FM, one owner). That said, and no matter how it's worded, there is nothing constructive about removing mentions of the other flagship stations from each of the respective station articles, particularly given the nature of this unusual two-company trimulcast. Levdr1lp / talk 21:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't take the remark as a personal insult, so don't worry about that. I just didn't understand why something that was accepted before wasn't now. You're right about one thing...I shouldn't have removed the mentions of the other stations...mistake on my part. I only edited the articles to begin with to reflect the Browns announcing their plans for pregame/postgame coverage, as well as the other Browns network auxillary programming during the week. (Quite honestly, it was all this extra stuff that probably helped WKNR/WKRK land the rights to begin with...just couldn't see WTAM and WMMS being willing to turn their schedules upside down to accomodate "Browns Daily" and the rest of it). Vjmlhds (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, there's no sense in comparing the CBS/Good Karma arrangement to Clear Channel's. One is way more complicated and convoluted than the other. That said, I have no issue with the programming details as long as they're properly sourced. Levdr1lp / talk 11:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

WOIO

Hey...whenever you get a chance, would you mind uploading WOIO's new 19 Action News logo to their article? It's on their website, and they debuted it this week with their new graphics package on all their newscasts. Thanks. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I will, so long as it remains outside of the infobox. There is nothing to indicate the station logo has changed. Only the news graphic appears to have changed. Levdr1lp / talk 13:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. Their main logo hasn't changed at all, only the 19 Action News logo. All I was looking for was that the new 19 Action News logo be incorporated in the article like the old one was, that's all. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I have uploaded the new "19 Action News" logo/graphic -- File:19 Action News 2013.png -- and added it to the appropriate section in the WOIO article. This will be the last time, however, I fulfill one of your upload requests. There is plenty of information on Wikipedia to guide you through the upload process. Levdr1lp / talk 23:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, brother. I'm sorry if this was an inconvenience for you. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's keep things a little more formal here (I'm not your "brother", literal or otherwise). And uploading images isn't at all inconvenient for me -- I just don't think I should be doing your work for you, especially when the upload process is so plainly laid out on this site. If the new "19 Action News" logo is so important to you, then perhaps you should take the time to learn how to upload it yourself. Levdr1lp / talk 14:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

WKNR

Here is a reference verifying the numerous firings at WKNR today. I was unaware that I needed to include this in the article, as I was under the assumption that in the article all that mattered was who was there, not who isn't anymore. [6]

Vjmlhds (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's an extra one to verify Reghi's departure. [7] Vjmlhds (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's a third article about the KNR blood-letting, this time announcing that 3 Deep is no more [8] Vjmlhds (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You're missing my point entirely. The Dawgs-by-Nature link says "Will Burge, T.J. Zuppe, Kenny Roda, and Michael Reghi were all fired". However, that post merely links to a Crain's-Cleveland story which says *nothing* about Reghi getting fired. In fact, the linked headline itself reads "WKNR-AM cans three of its on-air personalities" (not four). Levdr1lp / talk 13:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to WSMS may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | format = {{nowrap|[[Album-oriented rock]] (AOR}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a sock of anybody

Now stop reverting the WOIO page right now!!!! Jacob21703 (talk) 02:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I have opened a sockpuppet investigation into the above user at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TheREALCableGuy#07_September_2013. Levdr1lp / talk 14:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

What part of "I'm not a sock of anybody" don't you understand? You don't listen is your problem!!!! Also, UNBLOCK ME!!! Jacob21703 (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to state your case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TheREALCableGuy. Levdr1lp / talk 19:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I already did. Jacob21703 (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Good. I see no reason to continue here, then. Levdr1lp / talk 19:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

But yet you keep undoing my edit, even after I told you over and over again not to! Jacob21703 (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

You are a confirmed sockpuppet of banned user TheREALCableGuy. Levdr1lp / talk 03:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically WMMS, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Whoa there. File:Non-Stop Buzzard Rock.jpg has a sourced caption directly relevant to both the image and to the appropriate period in the station's history. File:WMMS-HD2, W256BT logo.png is a *logo*, and its presence in the article is used to identify WMMS-HD2 and its translator, W256BT/Cleveland -- nevermind the fact it more than likely qualifies for {{PD-textlogo}}. I have added a sourced caption to File:WMMS big-mouth logo.png per your concern, but please realize I've uploaded dozens of radio station logos. I am also an active member of WikiProject Radio stations. Consensus there is that station logos -- both past and present -- are almost universally acceptable fair-use under WP:NONFREE. As for your other fixes to the article, you yourself may wish to review WP:MOS. Levdr1lp / talk 19:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

A sourced caption isnt enough to meet WP:NFCC. A wikiproject's consensus cannot override policy. Werieth (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)1. The sourced captions provide critical commentary. 2. I am not suggesting that a WikiProject can override policy. My point is that our WikiProject has determined, through years of editing and consensus, that radio station logos are considered acceptable fair use. Levdr1lp / talk 19:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

An article gets 1 image for visual identification. (a single cover or logo) Anything in addition to that must have sourced critical commentary about the unique visual qualities or significance. One or two sentences are not justification. Werieth (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Please directly link to the explicit policy which states that articles may only use one non-free image for identification. Levdr1lp / talk 19:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8. If you take a look at the history of the talk page of NFC you will see further explanation and information about that. If you want to dispute the removals file a WP:NFCR and seek the restoration, until the NFCR closes please to not re-add files in violation of NFCC. Werieth (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk page discussions are not explicit policy. And I see no reason why the few non-free images with sourced critical commentary do not conform to WP:NFCC#3 or WP:NFCC#8. Rather than ram through your view, start your own discussion at non-free review. Levdr1lp / talk 19:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Final warning, you re-insert the files I will be filing an ANI requesting an non-free content topic ban for you. Werieth (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Warn away, my fellow editor. You are the one who is unwilling to discuss the issue. Until you can provide a direct link to explicit policy supporting your claim(s) (e.g., only 1 none-free image for identification, etc.), I have no intention of following this. Should you feel the need to request a topic ban on me at ANI, I will request the same of you in short order. Levdr1lp / talk 19:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

@Masem: & @Black Kite: are two admins who are very familiar with NFCC and can explain and provide more information if you want it. If a file doesnt have critical commentary it cannot meet WP:NFCC#8 (the second part). Take a look at most companies you will not find large numbers of historic logos unless there is associated critical commentary. Without it the files are decorative. Werieth (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The issue here is "what is critical commentary?" If you don't agree that the caption is sufficient critical commentary, start a discussion at WP:NFCR. Levdr1lp / talk 19:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_57#Critical_commentary Werieth (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, archived discussions from talk pages are not explicit policy. This is a matter of interpretation. Feel free to open a discussion at non-free content review. Levdr1lp / talk 19:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, @Masem: has questioned your "wholesale removal" of non-free images. Levdr1lp / talk 20:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

He's not wholesale removing it, but that's not the issue. First, as a native Clevelander, I'm well aware of the Buzzard, and do agree that a version of the logo with the Buzzard should be included given the iconic nature of the mascot to the city. The poster from 1974 is good, but I'm not sure if the switch to alternative needs the second poster shown, and instead would argue more along the lines of the logo that includes the Buzzard (eg [9]) since the latter version (drawn by Brian Chalmers) is the one that I remember a lot better. And a bit of google searching I come onto at least one ref [10] that discusses the logo changes due to artist changes. --MASEM (t) 20:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Masem- David Helton created the buzzard, so if we're going to include only one poster, I strongly favor 1975. It's from the station's peak in the 1970s, and it captures the balance of attitude and aggressiveness first proposed by John Gorman -- a desire to replace Malrite's static "mushroom" logo. I might be willing to let the alternative switch poster go in that scenario. But what about the "Big Mouth" logo? It's from the often overlooked pre-Buzzard Metromedia years. Sourced commentary can be found in the linked revision. Levdr1lp / talk 20:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, the WMMS-HD2/W256BT logo ("99X") likely qualifies, in my view, for {{PD-textlogo}}. Compare to Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_24#File:Extreme_Talk_logo.png. Levdr1lp / talk 20:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Im by no means wholesale removing, In fact I left more non-free files than I removed. The article used 7 files, I removed 3. File:WMMS big-mouth logo.png isnt referenced at all in the article, and having both posters seems redundant. Werieth (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Werieth- I am not accusing you of wholesale removal at WMMS. I am, however, noting that you seem to have a history of removing non-free images w/o discussing your concerns first. I take your point about the overall number of non-free files, and I am more than willing to have a discussion on what to keep and what to remove. It's just that your initial approach wasn't exactly ideal. Levdr1lp / talk 20:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

WOIO-DT2 image

I've gotten complaints about you and the WOIO 19.2 logo. Just because somebody moves it to the infobox does not mean it's a edit by TheREALCableGuy. Problem is you are way too judgmental. 103.6.87.121 (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

"Thanx for the Thanx" :) You're welcome. Dэя-Бøяg 16:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Mike Brown/Cavs template

you are removing Brown from a chronological list of coaches - it is incorrect. A second wikilink is not an issue - note just about any sports award template, such as Template:NBA MVPs, which links LeBron James 4 times and Template:US Presidents that links Grover Cleveland twice. Rikster2 (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Feel fee to discuss this matter on the Cavaliers template talk page. Levdr1lp / talk 15:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you feel free to discuss it since you are the one trying to impose a change that goes against convention? Rikster2 (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not "imposing" anything. Content is determined by consensus on policy and guidelines, not "convention". Levdr1lp / talk 15:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Then if you want to go against the current order of things, you should start a consensus discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association. This template is no island, it is one of 30. And where is the policy/guideline saying your way is correct? You haven't referenced anything. Rikster2 (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject conventions are not policy. They are specialized and somewhat-informal guidelines. Consensus editing, however, is a policy, and you have apparently opted to disregard the established consensus at {{Cleveland Cavaliers}}... as has the anon IP who started this off a couple weeks ago. If you had bothered to look at the edit history, you would have realized that a single Brown link was in place for months before that. BTW, don't think I have overlooked that you violated WP:3RR. Levdr1lp / talk 16:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

If you were so interested in consensus, you might try to work towards it rather than use it as a shield to do whatever you want. Look at Template:Golden State Warriors where Don Nelson also appears twice (in proper chronological order). Look at the templates I linked in my first message to you. Wikipedia can't foresee every possible standard - de facto standards (like this one - which exists in just about every chronological tenure infobox I can find, by the way) are in place until specific consensus can be reached. YOU still have not shown me any existing consensus that says what you are doing is "correct." If you are ticked at me for three reverts (though I see it that you have reverted my change three times), then feel free to open a dispute up. You should also read over the Wikipedia policy on Wikipedia:Ownership of articles while we are talking policy violations. Look, I have no issue with you. I am happy to engage in a consensus discussion in the right forum. Rikster2 (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

To reiterate, the template used a single wlink for Brown from April until two weeks ago when an anon IP added a second link. Moreover, it was other editor(s) who regularly edit the template who decided on a single wlink, not me (though I agree w/ that decision, hence the consensus). If anyone has ownership issues here, and if anyone is trying to impose their view, it's the editor who reverted *four* times in the last 24 hrs (you). Levdr1lp / talk 16:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you express your opinion at WP:NBA about my proposal concerning coach tenures and NBA infoboxes? Then we can move towards consensus. I'm for consistency, and the change that I added (and that you have reverted three times so far - you are not without sin) is to achieve that with other like templates such as Template:Golden State Warriors, Template:Miami Heat, etc. Why don't you engage and be a part of defining a clear consensus for these types of templates? Rikster2 (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Why do you refuse to open a discussion on the appropriate talk page? Levdr1lp / talk 16:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I did open a discussion and you blasted me for doing it "too late." Why won't you weigh in on my proposal for NBA templates at WP:NBA which would impact the Cavs template and 29 others? Rikster2 (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Two things. First, please don't put words in my mouth. I said you reluctantly opened a discussion at the {{Cleveland Cavaliers}} talk page after I urged you to do so -- this was only *after* you posted both this thread and a discussion on the WP:NBA talk page. Hardly "blasting" you. Second, I'm not particularly interested in the broader WikiProject discussion. That said, if the NBA project's members feel so compelled, they are certainly welcome to post at the Cavaliers' template talk page. Levdr1lp / talk 14:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

First, I did not put words in your mouth. I used a term that correctly conveys how I feel about your seeming inability to respond to my post on the template Talk page without getting a shot in. At this point, my concern is getting to true consensus on how these templates are used and I'm not intersted in engaging in any more uncivil back and forth with you on it. For anything that I have said that has offended you I apologize. With the larger template discussion - you misunderstand. If a broader consensus at WP:NBA (who governs this template and the 29 others like it) makes a style/content decision on them, it would impact what shows up on the Cavs template. That's part of how the Wikipedia consensus process works. I invite you to join that discussion if you have a POV (and I think you do) on how head coach information is displayed (or not) on the Cavs template. There is no need to bring this to the template Talk page at that point, and it isn't something I commit to doing except to explain why changes are being made. Rikster2 (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I never said you posted at the Cleveland Cavaliers template talk page "too late". I merely pointed out that you only *reluctantly* posted on the Cavaliers template talk page after repeated requests here and at the the NBA WikiProject talk page that you do so, and after you violated WP:3RR. So, yes, you were putting words in my mouth. As for the template, there is an obvious need for coordinating content across related topics through WikiProjects. This, however, is not a substitute for discussion at specific pages where editing conflicts first occur. If you are truly interested in building consensus in a civil way, stop with the lame excuse ("nobody reads a template talk page") and start a discussion. Levdr1lp / talk 01:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Lanigan

Look man, I get it -- you and I are in disagreement on Lanigan. Thing is I am old enough to remember him launching his career on 43 (those '10 years' you speak of was a pretty big chunk of his career at the time, and was largely responsible for giving him local celebrity status -- the subsection is titled 'Alumni" for a reason). The Prize Movie was a good chunk of the afternoon programming M-F on UAB and Lanigan was the face of it. Regardless of whether or not he has his own standalone article, he is still notable in Cleveland and does get mentioned in the WMJI article. Bottom line: his name belongs on that list as much as Supe and Barnaby do (two others I grew up watching). It doesn't need to be linked if that's your main contention, but Lanigan still belongs on that list.Ryecatcher773 (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The real issue here is that Lanigan needs an article. Give me a few days to get something together. Levdr1lp / talk 13:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

In the meantime, his name should still be listed on the UAB article. You can add the link later -- not everyone on Wikipedia listed in whatever given context on another article has his/her own article.Ryecatcher773 (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

If you are going to include Lanigan, convert it to prose, and adds some content. The widely accepted standard for such lists in broadcast media articles is that each entry have its own article (thus demonstrating notability). The name alone means nothing to readers unfamiliar w/ WUAB. Levdr1lp / talk 13:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

That's where the article you're planning on comes in. The prose section mentions the Prize Movie (and Lanigan) already, the same as it mentions Barnaby and Supehost. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

My point is that if you want to include Lanigan in the Alumni section, do so in prose until the article is written. Truth be told, Lanigan's article is long overdue, especially now that he will soon be inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame. Levdr1lp / talk 14:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

WOIO

Just to be sure you're informed (though I did mention this on Vjmlhds page where you were discussing), you're at [[WP:3RR] on WOIO (as is Vjmlhds); further reverting is going to result in blocks. Please discuss the issue on the article talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know. That's why I stopped reverting. I apologize for not going to the talk page sooner. Levdr1lp / talk 01:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:96.5 WKDD.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:96.5 WKDD.png. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

WDOK

I'll work on finding something better to verify the new afternoon DJ on WDOK, but I wanted to show you this straight from Kory himself to show that he's indeed out at WDOK.

Vjmlhds (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no doubt Kory is out; his Twitter post is reliable enough for me. But the source you used for the new on-air talent ("Jeremiah") says nothing about his shift. Nor does his station profile. Levdr1lp / talk 17:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Extreme Talk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Portland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Ohio Media Watch (December 2013)

I'd like to run something by you. In the past, Ohio Media Watch has been frowned upon as a source due to being by an "anonymous blogger". But lately OMW has undergone some changes. Mainly, Radio Insight has more or less taken OMW under their roof, being an information and technical supporter of the site, as well as working more directly with them. Long story short, is OMW now more acceptable as a source now that it's essentially under the Radio Insight umbrella? If they are, great. If not, then nothing changes and they're still on the outside looking in. I just wanted some clarification...I'd rather know the rules going in than trying to figure it out as I go and running into problems later on. Thanks. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The blog's primary contributor is still anonymous, so I wouldn't consider it reliable for the purposes of Wikipedia. Although some content for Ohio Media Watch may come from more credited sites (e.g., Lance Venta's Radio Insight), there is no consistent way of differentiating between what is and what is not taken directly from such sites. Moreover, I think we can safely assume the bulk of Ohio Media Watch content comes from the anonymous author of Ohio Media Watch (uncredited), not Radio Insight (credited). So, again, no, I don't think OMW qualifies as a reliable source per WP:SELFPUBLISH. If and when Ohio Media Watch identifies him/herself, then I would consider the blog a reliable source. Until then, no. Levdr1lp / talk 00:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Question --> Answered. Thank you. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I've just reread WP:SELFPUBLISH, and I'm afraid I'm going to have to revise my answer. OMW's primary contributor still needs to identify him/herself if we're ever going to be able to use OMW as a reliable source for Wikipedia -- that part doesn't change. But the primary contributor's identity alone is not sufficient to establish OMW's reliability. There must also be "previously published" reliable sources on the primary contributor's work as an "established expert... in the relevant field" -- in this case, news/reporting on NEOhio broadcast media. If Julie Washington has a self-published NEO media blog, it would (probably) be reliable because she's an "established expert... in the relevant field" (assuming other third-party publications have cited her) -- she covers "local television, local radio" for The Plain Dealer. So if OMW's primary contributor reveals his/her identity, and his/her reporting on NEO broadcast media has been "previously published" by reliable sources, then he/she would be considered an "established expert". No previous coverage establishing expertise = not reliable when self-published. Levdr1lp / talk 08:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Another example. Bob Lefsetz's self-published blog is reliable for WP because reliable third-party publications consider Bob Lefsetz an "an industry lifer" or an "industry insider". He's clearly an expert on the music industry, so his self-published blog on the music industry is reliable. Levdr1lp / talk 09:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

At the end of the day, OMW is a no go, which is how it's been for the past few years now. That's fine by me...I haven't used OMW as a source for a long time. All I was interested in was if anything changed due to OMW now being in business with Radio Insight. It hasn't, so the status quo remains regarding OMW - WP:NOTRELIABLE. Vjmlhds (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

OMW is a no-go... for now. That doesn't mean it's a no-go forever. OMW's association w/ Radio Insight does nudge it slightly in the more reliable direction. We'll just have to wait and see where that blog goes from here. Levdr1lp / talk 00:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

		The Good Friend Award
		Awarded by Vjmlhds on December 13, 2013 as a Christmas present to commemorate a better Wiki working relationship between us over the past year. Outside of minor squabbles, we've done a much better job of working together and avoiding major problems, and here's to the next year being even better. 18:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

What happened to the award?

First things first, sorry to hear about you being sick, and I hope you're feeling better. It's that time of year, and we're all feeling it. Second, Rye calling you delusional...not cool, he shouldn't have done that. Third, what happened to the Good Friend Award I gave you? I know we had a disagreement about the Cleveland article, but that doesn't mean I had any personal malice or was trying to do anything unseemly towards you. What I said still stands...we worked together better this year, and in the spirit of the season I wanted to show a sign of good faith. Obviously, I can't force you to accept an award if you don't want it, and you're upset with me for whatever reason, I'll try to rectify it. I just wanted it to be clear on my part that there's no personal ill will. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I thought Rye was out of line for that. As for removing your post, well, sometimes things get heated on this site. I apologize if, in a moment of frustration, I wiped out your good will. Please do not take it personally. As a show of good faith, I will restore your post after this edit. Levdr1lp / talk 00:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Levdr1lp / talk 00:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. People are gonna disagree around here...just the nature of the beast. But I learned way back when (kinda the hard way) to keep it at a "business" level and stay out of the personal zone. Rye crossed the line a bit, and I just wanted to make sure to let you know that I wasn't involved in that. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your "thanks"

You're welcome. My pleasure to help with that move requests :-) --Dэя-Бøяg 01:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Cleveland Stadium

This better? Thought about it and agreed with your revert. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Please stick to one talk page. Levdr1lp / talk 04:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Service Award

You've passed the 12,000 edit mark, which means you now are bumped up a rank to Veteran Editor II. I know you don't like people messing with your user page, but I just wanted to make sure you received the star that you earned.

Vjmlhds (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I just left a message on your talk page. Levdr1lp / talk 23:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I saw that. You must have done that at the same time I wrote my message above. It's cool you like the other ribbon better. It's your user page, so you're the boss. I was just wanting to make sure you got what you earned. I'll put it here just so at least you have it. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

(removed service award) Levdr1lp / talk 22:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

BTW...you have 2200+ edits under your old name of Levdr1, for 14K+ all totaled, so before too long you're gonna be bumped up again. I checked just for the heck of it, after seeing what I had done under my old name (Ohgltxg). Between Ohg and Vjm, I'm at 20K+, which was enough to bump me up a notch. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

edit on WKNR

The reason it took me a month to put in that reference was that I don't much edit Wikipedia anymore, so didn't even notice that you'd reverted my edit — I have edited thousands of pages, but very few in the last couple of years. And the reason I don't edit Wikipedia much any more is people like you. Reverting my edit because it has no reference is an absolutely stupid action — in effect, you changed a correct statement to a false one. In the old days, back around 2005 when I started editing Wikipedia, truth was more important than such concepts as "reliable source," and it wasn't even possible to put in a reference — the <ref>...</ref> tags didn't exist! Nobody would dream of doing what you did — either they'd try to verify it if they didn't believe it, or they would leave it alone. -- BRG (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Possibly you could have put in a "citation needed" flag... but reverting it? --- BRG (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The burden of evidence lies w/ the editor who adds or modifies content. I'm sorry if you have trouble accepting this aspect of core content policy. That said, kindly keep this discussion on a single talk page. WP:MULTI Levdr1lp / talk 18:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

As I said, your revert replaced true information with false. And the original, 1210 frequency, had no reference either! So there is absolutely no justification for your action. As I said, it is stupid recourse by others to stupid new rules (that never should have been created) that has mostly turned me off editing Wikipedia. The facts are: I corrected an incorrect statement, and you reverted it. There was no justification for the incorrect statement that WKNR was on 1210 in 1942, so why was there any reason to revert my edit, giving the correct 1240 frequency, to the wrong version?

As to keeping the discussion on a single talk page, I don't know about this new WP:MULTI rule you cite; the rule had always been that a message goes on the talk page of the person intended to receive it. -- BRG (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking at WP:MULTI -- this seems to refer to article talk pages, not user talk pages. As far as I know, a message to a user belongs on his own talk page, which is where I put my response. -- BRG (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Good practice on article talk pages is good practice on user talk pages. Although WP:TPG does not necessarily govern all user talk page actions, I, like most experienced users, find it best to keep discussions in a single forum. It's also just plain common sense -- why unnecessarily break up an exchange, even on a user talk page? As for the 1210 frequency source, had you read my initial revert's edit summary, you would know that there was already a source present in the same section verifying that claim. Levdr1lp / talk 21:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

BTW, WP:TRUE is hardly an acceptable rationale to justify adding unsourced content. Levdr1lp / talk 21:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

First or all, the source you cite can hardly be termed "reliable" as it contradicts itself! It first says that the station moved to 1210 in 1931, and then that it "change[d] its frequency to 1210" in 1942, which hardly makes sense.

Second, ever since I started editing Wikipedia, many years ago, I always understood that a message to someone goes on his own talk page. You have a thing you put on my talk page directing me to yours, and if you had not done that, I would not even know you were trying to communicate with me. See Help:Introduction to talk pages/User talk pages, which clearly states that messages to someone belong on their talk page.

Third, your comments about WP:TRUE are the essence of why I am becoming less and less likely to edit on Wikipedia. Such opinions are the antithesis of what I think Wikipedia ought to be, and I think I'm far from the only experienced editor who are abandoning Wikipedia for such reasons. But in any case, WP:TRUE certainly does not justify reverting a true statement for one that is demonstrably false! And that is what you did.

Fourth: there are templates like {{Citation needed}} that are intended for such purposes. It seems to me that the appropriate response on your part would have been to use that rather than to revert. -- 74.96.68.249 (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

BRG (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You may want to log in. Levdr1lp / talk 01:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for logging in. Levdr1lp / talk 01:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

As for the so-called "contradiction" on the WJW timeline link, you're assuming that the timeline is exhaustive (it isn't). It's entirely possible the station moved to 1210 twice. Just saying. Not that that justifies changing content w/o any source whatsoever. Levdr1lp / talk 01:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It is clearly wrong, and thus hardly "reliable." That is my point. -- BRG (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not "clearly wrong"; the timeline is not exhaustive. It's entirely possible the station broadcast at "X" frequency and switched to 1210. Then it switched to "Y" frequency. Then it switched again to 1210. You are making assumptions and making unsupported claims -- and that's my point. Regardless, thank you again for adding the source you should have added in the first place. Levdr1lp / talk 01:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible that a station went from 1210 to something else to 1210. Things like that really did happen, for example WLW in Cincinnati went back and forth between 710 and 700. The point I am making is that the source is clearly wrong, because I have sources, more reliable, that contradict it. I did not, at the time, post a source, but the fact that I did not post it then does not mean that the source you cite was reliable -- if I cite a source which claims that Cleveland was named for Grover Cleveland, that only means the source is unreliable, not that Cleveland was named for Grover Cleveland. -- BRG (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

"I did not, at the time, post a source..."

Exactly. And that's been my point all along. You added content w/o providing a source to verify your unsupported claim -- initially. Don't be surprised if I or other editors revert such edits. Levdr1lp / talk 01:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

And you reverted to a version that was not supported by a reliable source. What you simply cannot get into your head is that the version you reverted to was totally wrong! If the current version of the article said that Cleveland was in Nebraska and I had changed it to Ohio even without a source, would you revert it????? -- BRG (talk) 02:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Prior to your source, there was nothing to indicate the WJW timeline link was wrong or incomplete. As such, and as you added an unsourced claim (initially), I was fully justified (initially) in reverting your edit. Levdr1lp / talk 02:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

"Prior to your source, there was nothing to indicate the WJW timeline link was wrong or incomplete." There is not a presumption that every page on the Web is a reliable source. There was nothing to indicate the WJW timeline link was correct, either. So your reversion was no more justified than it would be in the case I cited where a page says Cleveland is in Nebraska and I change it to Ohio. You could, as I said, have put a {{citation needed}} flag — you simply have not once responded to this point, though I raised it twice before — you keep referring to my "unsourced claim," and that is the proper action, not reversion, especially when the version to which you reverted was based on a claim that (even though I had not posted my source to refute it) is clearly unreliable. -- BRG (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Uh, the timeline link is from the non-profit Cleveland Broadcast Radio Archives project. The organization, and its website, is run by Mike Olszewski. He's a professor at Kent State Univ., and has decades of experience working in Cleveland radio. He's written not one, but two books on local Cleveland radio. So, yeah, the link is reliable. It's not some random user-generated BS. Levdr1lp / talk 02:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I have just demonstrated to you now that the information in the link is wrong. Whether Mike Olszewski is a professor at Kent State is irrelevant, as is the fact that he has written books on the subject. And there are lots of Websites I have found that conflict with each other, so they cannot both be right. I have a book on local New York radio which definitely has some errors (because there are statements that conflict with others in the same book). So I certainly cannot accept that site as reliable. You may have thought you could trust it; certainly a radio log published in 1942 is more reliable. All you have demonstrated is that the site appeared to you to be reliable, because of your respect for Mike Olszewski's credentials; I have conclusively proved that it is not. Now I'm going to bed, so whatever more you write, don't expect a response for a day or more. -- BRG (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Back for another go on this merry-go-round? What you're missing here is the timeline of edits -- at the time I reverted your 1240 addition, you had not yet provided a reliable source to support you claim. You since have, which is why I did not revert the 1240 info a second time. Got it? Hope so. Levdr1lp / talk 03:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

We've indented too far. Let's start again.

First of all, you have not answered my major points.

• Why did you revert, rather than flag with {{citation needed}}, my edit?
• If you see a page with a statement that is obviously wrong, do you absolutely need a citation for your edit? As in my example, which I repeated; if you saw a statement that said Cleveland was in Nebraska, would you hunt down a reference that justified replacing Nebraska with Ohio before going ahead with making the change?

I came to the WKNR page, probably, looking for some other information. I saw the obviously wrong 1210 and changed it. I have a database, compiled from many sources, listing frequency change dates, not just for one station in Cleveland, but for the whole country (though nowhere near complete, of course). I don't have a source listed in my database for every entry in it, and in fact what I had for WJW was not, specifically, a 1942 listing, but rather that it changed from 1210 to 1240 on Mar. 29, 1941, based primarily on [11]. I do not have the url for that recorded in my database; there are, however, sources I have used (not just a source) that confirm this. Changing a 1 to a 4 took a second. I certainly did not expect to be spending hours defending this change with a stubborn person who seems more interested in slavish devotion to Wikipedia rules rather than the truth, so I didn't bother spending the 5 or 10 minutes it would take to get a specific citation for 1942 — obviously, I could do so, and by now have done so, but it seemed unnecessary at the time.

Assuming Prof. Olszewski's credentials are as good as you claim, I imagine the "1210" on that site is a typo; someone wrote "1210" when they should have meant to write "1240." But you don't want to challenge that, it seems, while you go and revert my edit, which, had you investigated the facts, is probably a lot more reliable. While I can understand that you saw it as "unsupported," as I have said at least four times by now, you could simply have flagged it, rather than reverted to a wrong version. Unless you had some proof that my figure was wrong and his was right, which you obviously do not, because it's not so, your action was beyond the bounds of reasonability. It was reasonable for you to question my edit, but not to revert it.

Can you get that? -- BRG (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Unlike you I am more concerned with the consequences of Wikipedia propagating errors than with getting a source for every correction, and fixing this one error "properly" by your lights (i. e. with a source given) involved:

1. Finding the exact Web page that had the correct information,
2. Looking up the exact Wikipedia template that needed to be used (i. e. determining that {{Cite journal}}, rather than {{Cite book}} or some other template, was the appropriate template),
3. Searching in a multi-page PDF for all of the parameters which need to be filled in to use {{Cite journal}} correctly, and
4. Entering in all those parameters correctly.

All this just to correct a single erroneous number in the article! Had you been in my place, I suppose you would have left the error alone, rather than fix it. (After all, you reverted my edit, deliberately introducing an error, rather than permit the correct information to be displayed without a source!)

I just cannot understand the mindset of someone like you! -- BRG (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow, busy much? :) ... Look, I've explained my initial revert. And explained it. And explained it. If you replace sourced information w/ unsourced information, don't be surprised if I or other editors revert it. If you can't comprehend that basic concept, then perhaps Wikipedia really isn't for you. Levdr1lp / talk 21:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

That's why I don't do much Wikipedia editing these days. Wikipedia was fun when I started. It is not any more. But as I've repeated and repeated and repeated, I did not "replace sourced information w/ unsourced information," but replaced information which was obtained from an unreliable source with information whose source I did not feel necessary to give at the time, because it was a correction of an obviously false datum. You cannot seem to get that through your skull.

And you refer to you "or other editors": I have engaged in a number of exasperating edit wars with people who took exception to something I did, but have never run across any other editor who actually reverted a correction I made to a false piece of information! -- BRG (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You have an awful lot of faith in the source you've provided. I have no doubt the information in the White's publication is factual and accurate, but I don't necessarily have any more faith in that piece of print than I do in Mike O.'s website. And I think you miss that subtlety -- that your entire argument rests largely on the accuracy of White's. Personally, I don't really care which source is "true". I just prefer some reliable source is used when adding or modifying content to WP articles. Call me crazy, but I prefer sourced statements over unsupported assertions. Levdr1lp / talk 02:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

…your entire argument rests largely on the accuracy of White's. Nonsense. White's was the first source I went to, the one I used to provide a reference, specifically because I wanted to provide a 1942, rather than a 1941, source. As I said, there are other sources, including [12] (my primary source for the 1941 frequency changes), [13] - see page 19 (a competitor of White's, thus unlikely to use the same data), and others. The American Radio History site, which collects actual publications from the time and photocopies them, is much more reliable than the site you quote, which consists of hand-entered data and thus is vulnerable to people's mistranscription of data. I continually refer to this site for data prior to the 1970s (the FCC's own online database only goes back to the 1970s, so cannot be used for data from before then). -- BRG (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I am very familiar w/ the American Radio History website. I frequently use it for references, but it's certainly not perfect. I have run across contradictions within the site itself, within the same publication from year to year. No source is right 100% of the time, but that doesn't really matter in this case. You changed sourced information w/o providing a new source to verify that claim. You keep dancing around that simple fact, and frankly, it's becoming ridiculous. Not you yourself, mind you, but your stubborn refusal to accept basic site policy -- namely, WP:V. You added information w/o a source, and so there was never any guarantee your edit would remain untouched. I'm sorry you don't seem to like the current state of WP or it's community, but there's nothing I could (or would) do to change it. Levdr1lp / talk 13:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

"...there's nothing I could (or would) do to change it." Nobody else has reverted an edit I made under the conditions in question. As convinced as you are that you represent the WP policy on this sort of thing, you are a man alone in fact. As I have stated on numerous occasions in this exchange, you had an option that every Wikipedia editor has in fact, to flag the unsourced data with {{Citation needed}}. And despite your appeal to WP:TRUE, I doubt that anyone in the WP community would say that replacing true data (no matter unsourced or not!) with clearly false data (as shown by three citations I have given you since!) is justified. -- BRG (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You are certainly under a severe misapprehension: that I used the White's Log page as my only source. In fact, the ARH site has at least three different publications, all of which I have pointed out to you, that confirm my edit. Which means that the WJW timeline is utterly wrong no matter how much you might respect Mike Olszewski's research. (I assume, as I've said, that someone made an error in transcribing data to a Web page there; I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on his research.) In fact, one could say that the source for my original edit was none of these, but [14], which, however, would not be citeable under WP's guidelines since I entered most of the data myself. Wikia, unlike Wikipedia, does not have such rules as "no original research," and so on the Broadcasting site I do not have to abide by those rules, and on there I have created a database of thousands of entries, each of which owes information to various sources. I do not record the sources there! If I have data that said something was true on June 30, 1928 and again on June 30, 1929, those dates will be given, with an indication that it could run before and after those dates. If subsequently I find data that confirms that it was true on June 30, 1930, I will delete the 1929 date. I do not clutter up those pages with lots of citations because additional information I get would obsolete them, but sometimes only in part. So I don't have all the information I would need to properly document a correction I make on WP, but I can find it, as you have seen. So if I put something in and someone later contends that it needs to be documented, I always can, but it takes searching. I would never knowingly put in false information, which seems not to be something you care about. You will happily put in false (but documented) information to replace true (but undocumented)! This is where you and I part company. -- BRG (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

And, BTW, my reading of WP:TRUE seems to imply that it is not official WP policy, but simply a generally accepted consensus. (It is headed: "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines.") It also might be used to justify removing true, but undocumented, information. However, I do not think you can show me anywhere on WP a policy that replacing correct data by false information is justified. Which is why you should not have reverted, as the most you can possibly claim is that you believed at the time you had a better source. -- BRG (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I know I had a better source when I reverted your edit because -- at the time I reverted -- you had none. No source when one is already present = revert. Since my revert, you actually provided a source verifying your initial claim, and that's why I haven't touched it since then. Hope this helps. Levdr1lp / talk 20:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you really provided a source for every single edit you have ever performed on Wikipedia? Even when it was obvious to you that there was an error to be corrected? I doubt it.

And you still have not answered my question about why you reverted, rather than simply flagged it as unsourced! -- BRG (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the last time I will be responding to you on this topic. I think I've pretty much exhausted the issue. That, and I don't care to waist any more time on this merry-go-round. Rest assured knowing that if you make a significant change to an article -- from a subject I tend to focus on -- w/o providing a source to verify the change, I will not hesitate to revert that edit... BTW, don't bother replying -- any further replies/posts on this topic on my talk page will be ignored (or at the very least, deleted). Levdr1lp / talk 10:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Auld Lang Syne

Here's some bubbly to ring in 2014...may the year continue to see good things for you, both wiki-wise and beyond.

Vjmlhds (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Just so it's there

(removed service award)
Let me at least give you this star that you did earn...maybe you can put it in your user box. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't want it. Okay? Levdr1lp / talk 22:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I kapish. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Enough's Enough

You gave me the invitation to address you directly on your talk page, so here I am. I noticed you took down my barnstars (again)...you always seem to do that every time get into it with somebody, and not just with me...you did it after your tussle with Ryecatcher awhile back as well.

At this point, I don't care anymore...as you so very frequently like to point out, it's your page, so party on.

You just seem to always be in an angry or combative mood...again, not just with me, as your whole talk page is filled with tit-for-tats with various other users.

I try being nice, I try doing things out of good faith, I've even stuck up for you against other editors (editors who agreed with me even) and the response is almost always the same...you jumping down my throat about one thing or another.

And the other day, you gave me this big spiel about how having TWA badges on my user page somehow degrades me as an editor...the more I looked into it, the more quite frankly I saw that it wasn't the case.

As I pointed out on my talk page, there are tons of other editors with TWA badges (a good deal of them being very well experienced and decorated)...does that degrade them as well?

All the badges show is that I (and the others) like to have a little fun on here sometimes...but that doesn't mean that I (or they) can't do serious work either.

That little spiel was kind of a roundabout way of saying "you're a bum", and quite frankly I didn't appreciate it, but instead of arguing, you pissed me off to the point where I wanted to show you what was what, so I went to work creating some articles.

First Lanigan, then several other longtime Cleveland media personalities that have had notable careers and accomplishments (Ohio Broadcasters HOF, Cleveland Press Club HOF, Ohio Sportswriters of the Year, various Emmy Awards, published books, etc).

Then as you remember (cause you were front and center during all of that hub-bub) it was me that basically rewrote the Jeff Phelps article, finding all the necessary references to satisfy the WP:N concerns that you had brought up when you nominated it for deletion.

Then I felt the need to point out all the work I did on the Lassie article, which was rated as a Good Article. Now I'm certainly not gonna say that it was all because of me it got there, but I'd like to think that I did my part to help maintain that status.

So, at the end of it all there's 2 ways of looking at it - I get mad, I go to work...you get mad, and you do the Wiki equivalent of throwing a temper tantrum (tearing down all your editor ribbons and barnstars).

BTW...I did not award myself anything...the TWA badges automatically pop up on the user page when you complete a level (I told you this already, and if you're still not convinced, play TWA and see for yourself), and while I created the Lassie Award, I did not give it to myself...all I did was create an award for those who worked on an article (that I have an interest in) to maintain it's quality.

Vjmlhds (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Rest assured, the barnstars are never going back up again. And of course you awarded yourself (again) -- only this time you did it with: a) an award you created; and b) an award you named after a late user. I think that pretty much speaks for itself. Levdr1lp / talk 06:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You've got some gall...I clearly made it a point NOT to include the Lassie Award in the awards section on my user page. I included it as part of my contributions (like the articles I've written and worked on) because it was something I worked on, but for you to insinuate I'm using the memory of a late editor to pat myself on the back is quite frankly insulting. There are many other users who have created personal awards...but when I do it it's somehow wrong?...I created it to HONOR the guy who created an article that made it up to GA status, yet you want to crap on it because you have your nose bent out of shape with me. That's just wrong...really wrong. Once again, I DID NOT give myself anything...all I did was create something to give TO OTHERS for maintaining a quality article I have an interest in. Vjmlhds (talk) 06:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I made an error. I assumed you were listing yet another one of your accomplishments/awards, not merely linking to that newly-created award. To be fair, you did recently note your contributions to the Lassie page, and I thought this was yet another userpage pat-self-on-the-back. But I was wrong, and I apologize. The award is a nice gesture. Levdr1lp / talk 07:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Again...Thanks for apologizing. And just to make sure the air is clear regarding my awards...there is nothing there that is a "selfie". The service award is based on pure data (under both of my long-ago-abandoned former name and my current name), the barnstar was given to me by Nathan Obral, and the TWA badges were earned in the process of playing the game. Vjmlhds (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The service award is fine, the barnstar is fine. The TWA badges are a little silly -- either you're truly a veteran editor, as the service award suggests, or you're a new editor unfamiliar w/ site policies and guidelines (and thus deserve recognition for completing a beginner's tutorial). Levdr1lp / talk 07:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's just agree to disagree on this one...you might think they're a little silly, but there are plenty of others out there who see it the way I do - as harmless little trinkets that came from playing a game (which how a lot of the more experienced editors/players view TWA anyway...as a game.) Vjmlhds (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I just can't take them at all seriously. Who are these other "more experienced editors"? Levdr1lp / talk 07:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If you go to my talk page, and find my original statement about the TWA badges, you'll see the blue TWA badge. Click on it, and it'll take you to the list of all the users who have the wings on their user page. As I said, some are noobies, some are seasoned wiki pros, and some are in between. You'll know which is which when you go through them all. Vjmlhds (talk) 08:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

All I know is that I had never seen anything TWA-related on any user page before I same them on yours. Call me crazy, but I don't think it's a coincidence that they first appeared right around the time you decided to started to "spruce things up" there (redundant service awards, etc). It just all feels like you've been trying to inflate your accomplishments. Levdr1lp / talk 08:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

What's right is right.

Even though I know how you feel about awards, and we've had our run-ins, If I'm going to introduce an award meant to recognize those who significantly contribute to Cleveland and Cleveland related articles, I wouldn't be doing right if I myself didn't recognize someone who clearly and has been well documented to have contributed to such articles.

So take it for what it's worth, but as I said - what's right is right, and one should get what they deserve so here goes:

• 
  216 Barnstar given to Levdr1lostpassword for significant contributions to Cleveland and Cleveland related articles...especially in helping to get the Cleveland article itself to reach Featured Article status

Vjmlhds (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Indians

I'm not gonna make a big deal outta this, but the pic of the World Series trophy I used was free use, so I didn't figure there would be a problem.

All WS winning teams get their own trophy (just like all Super Bowl winners and NBA Champions)

The only sport this doesn't occur is in hockey, where the Stanley Cup trophy is passed down year after year from team to team.

Vjmlhds (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds:-- I know the image is free, but that's not an argument to include it in the article. It's a photo of the 2004 WS trophy, not the 1920 trophy, not the 1948 trophy (this assumes there even was a unique trophy given out those years). The Indians' World Series titles are already noted in the article's infobox, history section, and the Indians navbox (among others places). Repeatedly linking to a specific trophy w/ no connection to the team seems excessive. Levdr1lp / talk 16:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

AfD Spam

Why are you spamming about this AfD? As best I can tell I have not edited the article not participated in the first deletion. Jeepday (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jeepday:-- The first nomination resulted in "no consensus" after being relisted not once, but twice. The second nomination has now also been relisted. To encourage discussion, I notified all editors of the article, excluding bots and those editors who only contributed minor edits. I wouldn't call that spam. Levdr1lp / talk 22:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

You edited the article twice in 2008.[15][16] I was truly only trying to generate discussion, and never thought I was violating WP:CAN. If anything, I would assume the majority of contributors to the article would favor keeping the article. Levdr1lp / talk 22:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

You are correct I missed seeing my edits in the history Jeepday (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Moondog

I gotta know...where the H-E-double hockey sticks did you come up with that affidavit to add to the Moondog Coronation Ball article as a reference? Regardless, nice find. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: The information is covered, at least in part, in Gorman's book on WMMS. I was away from a hard copy of the book earlier, so I tried to find an online source to replace the COPYVIO text as quickly as possible. I was searching for very specific phrases, like "Moondog Coronation Ball II". The legal document merely, and conveniently, happened to be one of the first search results I came across. Levdr1lp / talk 03:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

@Levdr1lostpassword: Cool beans. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Thanks. (You don't need to ping me on my own talk page -- I'm notified regardless.) Levdr1lp / talk 04:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Parting shots

You are exactly right about Blue Salix but I don't think it was necessary to express that sour thought at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live Wire Radio. The important thing is that the article is kept, not that Blue Salix's nose is held down to smell the mistake. I say let it go. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@Binksternet: You're not wrong. Let's just leave it at that. Thanks for helping to save the article from deletion. Levdr1lp / talk 15:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I guess you had nothing to do with saving Live Wire Radio. "Scheduled deletion" was prevented all due to a "singular" effort. Ha. Levdr1lp / talk 21:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm biting my tongue. Binksternet (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I'll be sure to bite mine next time. Thanks again. Levdr1lp / talk 22:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar (January 2014)

		The Original Barnstar
		For some really great work on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live Wire Radio. Your efforts made a huge difference and really worked to save the article! BerkeleyLaw1979 (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow, thank you, BerkeleyLaw1979! Levdr1lp / talk 01:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Browns Emmys and WOIO.

I actually found that bit about the Browns' Emmys while looking to see if the Browns archived the story about the WOIO/Lerner family 9-1-1 fiasco.

The 9-1-1 story isn't archived on the Browns' website, so now I'm at a loss for what to do about the dead link on the WOIO, as apparently the Browns (having redone their website in the last couple of years) didn't archive that story. Any ideas?

BTW, thanks for your recent edits on Romona Robinson...I was trying to find a way to link to the Obama interview without stepping on WP:Copyright toes.

Vjmlhds (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Try to find another source from around that time (2006?). Until then, leave the dead link in place. It was active at some point, so there's no reason to doubt the information contained within the WOIO article. Levdr1lp / talk 00:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Controlling owner

I'm not going to war over this, but in the reference from Sports Illustrated I used for the Paul Dolan article, it specifically used the term "controlling owner", which is why I included it. It wasn't a case of me making up a term, it was a term used in what I thought was a pretty good reference, So there's no WP:OR here. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Yes, I noticed the AP story via SI.com, and I reverted my edit. Levdr1lp / talk 18:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

In reference to asking me who owns the Indians, the Indians themselves list Larry as owner and Paul as Chairman/CEO. But what all this "control person"/"controlling owner" stuff basically boils down to is that Paul now is the main decision maker, and Larry is basically a figurehead. To put it in simple real world terms, Paul's the boss, and Larry's role is for all intents and purposes ceremonial. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: All that matters is what the sources actually say, and most of them, including MLB.com, say PD is the "control person". I'm okay w/ acknowledging the term the AP uses, as long as there is a clarification that "controlling owner" has not been used by the MLB itself. We should also be careful when using that term as "controlling owner" sounds awfully close to "majority owner", and Paul's father Larry is still the actual "owner", even if in a less directly-involved way. Levdr1lp / talk 19:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, my whole thing was just making it clear that I didn't pull the "controlling owner" phrase out of the air. When you started throwing WP:OR at me it kinda took me aback, which is why I felt the need to respond, but then you said you saw the AP via SI story yourself, so that was put to bed. "Control person" is the more commonly used phrase in the references, plus in some other references I have found, but I didn't want to overdo it with a bunch of references that all basically said the same thing. So the way the article sits now (regarding the phraseology in question) is fine. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Clearly it wasn't WP:OR since you had a reliable source for the term "controlling owner"; I was in error to remove it entirely. Levdr1lp / talk 21:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

All good. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Good. Levdr1lp / talk 21:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Surrender

I know when I'm licked. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Don't beat yourself up. The Michael Stanley photo was an appropriate addition to WNCX. My concerns about the others were: a) that the team logos don't add any new information to the existing text of the radio station articles; and b) that the Brutus mascot has no direct connection to WKNR. Levdr1lp / talk 00:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Lewin

Hi, In my research trying to figure out why Dennis Lewin's page is up for deletion I think it is you that nominated it for deletion. I would like to employ your help to guide me in an effort to save his page. I would appreciate any comments or suggestions from you. Thank you in advance for your help! Mmcard59 (talk) 02:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

@Mmcard59: Dennis Lewin has not received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, so he fails WP:BASIC. He also does not meet any of the criteria under WP:MUSICBIO. Unless you can provide multiple reliable sources on Lewin which are also independent of Lewin (WCLV links would not qualify), I see no reason to keep his article. Levdr1lp / talk 03:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, I would like to respectfully challenge you. Actually he does meet more than 1 of the required items in WP:MUSICBIO. http://www.cleveland.com/tv/index.ssf/2008/07/dennis_lewins_classicalmusic_r.html There are more out there that I will find. I will also be sending you a link with the record labels that have his name on. Also, why would his work at WCLV not apply? WCLV is heard all over the world and has made his following enormous? He airs his program in New Hampshire and Indonesia. People all over the country listen to his radio program. It is one of the top programs on WCLV. WCLV is the flagship station to the Cleveland Orchestra. Dennis also played with Yo-Yo Ma. That is huge in the classical music world. He commentated the International Piano Competition a couple of years ago. There are so many things he has done past and present that certainly make him notable. I do agree that his page that was created by a friend of his is much too wordy. Maybe if we take a lot of the general chit chat out and narrow it down to verifiable facts would help? Any input from you is greatly appreciated.... Mmcard59 (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mmcard59: WCLV is a local FM radio station. When you say it's "heard all over the world", I can only assume you mean that it streams online, something neither unique nor particularly notable in 2014. All that matters for the purpose of establishing Lewin's notability is the level of coverage he has received from reliable, indecent sources (WCLV airs Lewin's show, so it's not independent). As of yet, I'm not seeing enough coverage on Lewin to justify keeping his article. And if you're going to claim he somehow satisfies WP:MUSICBIO, then please specify how exactly. Levdr1lp / talk 01:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Good morning! I have several things to show you but I don't want to upload until I get your approval that it can be used. Also, I want to reword a lot of Dennis Lewin's page to make it not so wordy and more fact based. I'm sure you don't want to share your email address on here so mine in marticarder@hotmail.com . If you could please send me an email so I can forward these items to you I'd appreciate it! Thanks for all your help!! Mmcard59 (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mmcard59: Please review Wikipedia:Non-free content before uploading additional files. And while you are certainly free to reword the Lewin article, please bear in mind that article quality does not determine notability. If you are truly interested in saving the Lewin article, then find additional coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. As for contacting me through email, the answer is no. You are free to discuss things with me here on my talk page. Levdr1lp / talk 21:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Lol, I wasn't trying to make a personal connection with you, I just am not very good at uploading things here and wanted to get your blessing before I did on the items I have. Also, I want to challenge you on your comment "(WCLV airs Lewin's show, so it's not independent)". The Dennis Lewin Radio Program was created by Dennis Lewin back in 1994. It began on WERE 1300 AM, then moved to News Talk 1420 WHK, then 4 years ago moved to WCLV where it still is now in Cleveland. Due to the quality, popularity, and uniqueness of his program. the program currently airs on 2 other radio stations as well... 1 in New Hampshire and 1 in Indonesia which neither have anything whatsoever to do with his affiliation with WCLV. It also aired in Houston on KNTH News Talk and the BBC. So based on these facts wouldn't he be deemed independent? Btw, I challenge you with the upmost respect! Sometimes typed words take on a different meaning than intended. Thanks in advance for your reply! Mmcard59 (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mmcard59: WCLV currently airs Lewin's show, so therefore it's not independent of either Lewin or his show. I would think it's fairly obvious that any radio station has a clear interest in promoting the programming it sends out over its own airwaves. I'm also sorry if you're having trouble grasping this simple concept: only coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject, of which WCLV is clearly not one, can be used to establish basic notability. Feel free to share other concerns you have here on my talk page, but please be sure to follow standard talk page guidelines and *indent* your posts. Thank you. Levdr1lp / talk 20:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Simple concept?? Lol, there is nothing simple about editing in Wikipedia. I build houses, that's what I know. I'm trying my best to help here and save this page. I get it now though... you are referring to articles about Dennis from other sources rather than WCLV generated media, if I am correct. I do have that. He was spot lighted in CBC Magazine and the Plain Dealer so I'll link those in and hope it helps. I guess the thing I'm having a hard time grasping here is that there should be any question that this man be deserving of a Wiki page when he has been a musical icon for so many years yet a woman like Andrea Yates has her own page without scrutiny and all she ever accomplished was murdering her children. Somehow that just doesn't make sense to me. Thanks for being so patient with me in trying to figure all the guidelines out. :) Mmcard59 (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mmcard59: First off, knock off the "LoL"-ing right here and now -- that kind of tone is neither civil nor constructive and I won't tolerate it on my talk page. Secondly, and more to the point, notability on Wikipedia is generally established when a subject has received sufficient coverage from reliable sources. So, broadly speaking, the more reliable sources on a subject, the more likely that subject is to be notable. If that's not simple enough, then perhaps Wikipedia isn't for you. Levdr1lp / talk 22:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you took my "lol's" the wrong way. I use them in text as a light hearted response to show that my reply is neither argumentative or rude. I really do want to work with you and appreciate all your input. Honestly, I feel like a Wikipedia dummy and that is why I employed your help. I truly meant no disrespect. Mmcard59 (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mmcard59: Let's review how we got here. I'm a relatively experienced editor. I also nominated the Dennis Lewin article for deletion. I did this because, in my view, Lewin is not nearly notable enough for his own article. Later on, you, a relatively new and inexperienced editor, then asked me to help save the very same article from deletion. In other words, you asked for help from the editor who is the least likely to help you with this specific goal. I'm willing to answer questions and help in other ways when possible, but I have no intention of reversing my position on Lewin in the absence of new evidence demonstrating his notability. I simply disagree with you on Dennis Lewin, and you're not going to persuade me with information easily available through either the existing article or other online sources. So let's move on already. Levdr1lp / talk 01:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't employ your help to try and persuade you to do anything. I chose to deal with you in hopes to understand what was needed to save Lewin's page since you were the one to nominate it for deletion to start with. I will load my links on his page as best I can. I'm new to Wiki and there is so much wordage in instructions and requirements that it gets a bit overwhelming. Thanks for your input and help... Mmcard59 (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mmcard59: There are plenty of resources available to help new editors navigate this site, including the many links posted to your very own talk page. Start there. Levdr1lp / talk 21:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rover's Morning Glory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tape delay (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Warrior Star

• 
  Wiki Warrior Star

I would be honored if you would be the first recipient of the Wiki Warrior Star. Having done battle with you as many times a I have, I know you're a tough cookie, and I have the metaphoric scars to show for it. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Beau Coup

Excuse me!!! I rolled over and abandoned the Dennis Lewin Page and now you are editing the Beau Coup page while I'm editing?????? What's up with that????????? Mmcard59 (talk) 06:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mmcard59: Yes, that's how Wikipedia works. You don't have any special right to the Beau Coup article -- WP:OWN. Any editor who isn't blocked can edit any article at any time (assuming there isn't some special protection applied at the time). Levdr1lp / talk 06:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I NEVER CLAIMED ANY OWNERSHIP!!!!!!! I am editing a page with band members names and album titles. These are factual issues. What is your problem with what I am doing here?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmcard59 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Mmcard59 (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Mmcard59: Just because something about Beau Coup is "true" doesn't mean it belongs in the Beau Coup article. All facts must be verified by reliable sources (there were whole sections in that article without any sourcing). Even then, not everything true about Beau Coup is relevant to the subject of Beau Coup for this website. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic endeavor, not a repository for every fact ever recorded. WP:INDISCRIMINATE Levdr1lp / talk 06:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

How do you feel that adding band members names when they were BEAU COUP are not relevant???? And how do you figure that their songs are not relevant?? Why did you put a banner on the top of the page. The page has already been accepted. All I was doing was adding very relevant information. Mmcard59 (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Mmcard59: Read my edit summary. Add the other band members, in prose and w/ sources, if you feel they are so important (by convention, lists of individuals are generally limited to those w/ articles). The page needs more sources overall, so I added the {{Refimprove}} template. Levdr1lp / talk 06:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mmcard50: Do you have any professional or personal ties to either Beau Coup or Dennis Lewin? Wikipedia has a clear guideline regarding conflict of interest, and you haven't edited anything outside of the Lewin/Beau Coup article. I noticed this page from Dennis Lewin's website. Levdr1lp / talk 07:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I live in Texas, not Cleveland. I grew up east of Cleveland though but left that area in February of 1980 before Beau Coup even existed and only learned about Beau Coup or his affiliation with it while listening to his radio program a few year back when he aired on a local station here in Houston. I took an interest because he was from Ohio and I loved his show. I still listen to it via the internet. Am I a personal friend of his? No, but I admire his work! I came to Wiki to view my son's page and did a search just for fun to see if he was there and saw all the hoola about his page and wanted to help. I thought it would be fun. But as it's turned out the only fun part was contacting him through his website and requesting he email copyright approval to use some pictures I found on the internet that were going to be deleted. I doubt that qualifies as a personal or professional relationship. I'm just aggravated that no matter what I do here you challenge me. Deleting my work that took me hours to compile was very rude. I would have send a message and said hey you need to do this, or you need to do that and show some respect instead of trashing my work right in my face. When I saved an edit and it went back to the page and everything was gone mad me very upset. You deleted a lot more work than I did. I was NOT the originator of either the Lewin Page OR the Beau Coup page. I just thought it would be fun to take on the endeavor. Then the Lewin page redirected to the Beau Coup page. Anyway, I just don't understand why band members names and song titles aren't good info for the page. Mmcard59 (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mmcard59: You're absolutely right, you did NOT create the article, and I apologize saying you did -- that was an error on my part. As for the content of the article, I don't necessarily have a problem w/ you adding the band member and song info so long as you are using reliable sources to verify your claims. Also, per convention, lists of people generally only include individuals who are "notable" (i.e., those w/ a devoted article). Personally, I would prefer if you add the band and song member info in prose. Levdr1lp / talk 07:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Why are you playing tug of war with me on this.? It's better to not mention any names rather than mention 2 people that weren't even the originators of the band. It is my opinion that doing this discredits the numerous other people that were in this band. I mean no disrespect but you've turned a very informative page into a 1 paragraph nothing. 75.89.66.106 (talk) 12:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@75.89.66.106: First of all, if this is Mmcard59, then you need to log in. Secondly, assuming you are Mmcard, I'm not playing "tug of war" with you; I restored properly sourced content that you removed w/o a good reason for doing so. Levdr1lp / talk 12:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I switched to my ipad and didn't realize I wasn't logged in. I feel I had a good reason. Look, whether it was sourced or not everything on the page was factual before you destroyed it. It isn't even right to only mention 2 names. Why would anyone be so mean to do that.? Don't you realize that it will just infuriate the other band members? So why make people feel that way. I feel if all the names can't be there for what ever reason, then none should be. Mmcard59 (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mmcard59: Find sources to verify your claims about the other band members, then add these members in prose rather than in a list. Bullet lists are generally limited to notable individuals (i.e., those w/ articles). Levdr1lp / talk 14:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to start over with you. I do understand where you are coming from but it was just such a feeling of defeat to do all that work last night just to have it deleted in the middle of doing it. I'll be honest, this past 16 hrs has been a huge learning experience for me. I have forced myself to learn how to upload links properly and offer citations correctly. For this I thank you. If I had know a bit more about the process last month I may have been more successful with Lewin's page. At any rate, please accept my apology for being so upset. I just wish you had given me a warning or some time to prove my items or just chat with me. I have been working on the page today and I hope everything is ok with what I've done. I need to refer back to my members list. I've been looking at other band wiki pages and I have seen bulleted lists of names so I am going to reload only the list of the 5 main guys, 4 of which have their names and photos on the back cover of their album which Amherst has sent OTRS a copyright exception for. Then I would like to keep your heading for notable members and leave all the other names out. I understand that a lot of them were brief fill ins and probably shouldn't have been there. I only added to a list that was already there though. Then I want to continue with my songs list. I see other band pages have them. They are songs that are on their albums so I don't think it should be a problem. I hope you agree. Thank you for your help. Since you are a Cleveland Editor I will probably get your help when I work on my son's page too. That is what first brought me here since he is a Cleveland Brown and a friend of mine told me he had a wiki page. I took on the challenge of Dennis Lewin's page because I saw it was in trouble and since I could be considered a fan it was a cool challenge to undertake. Thanks again Mmcard59 (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

WMMS/Indians Flagship

I'm not gonna go to war over this, but just as an explanation, I figured since the Indians themselves classified WMMS as a flagship in their (finally) updated affiliate list, that it'd be fine to do so here. I know it was a contentious issue in the past, but I figured as we actually had a definitive source that clearly used the word "flagship" (and what better source than the team itself) that there wouldn't be a problem. As I said, I'm not gonna go "mad bomber" and revert anything, but I just wanted to respectfully say my peace Vjmlhds (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: One sources lists WMMS as a flagship. Dozens, however, explicitly state that WTAM is the sole "flagship" and WMMS is -- and I'm quoting here -- the "FM home". Moreover, the affiliate list is not a statement from the Indians organization, the Indians radio network, WTAM or WMMS. In other words, it could technically be incorrect. Maybe WMMS was listed as a flagship out of convenience. Maybe the web master doesn't know better. Also, while the affiliate list itself is certainly reliable, I would consider it less reliable than an Indians press release or a report from the PD or Cleveland.com. As I've said before, sometimes it's necessary to take multiple sources into account. Unless the Indians, the Indians radio network, WTAM and/or WMMS start referring to WMMS as a "flagship", I see no reason to change any content. Levdr1lp / talk 12:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Que sera, sera. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I stumbled upon these articles - one from the Plain Dealer, and one from Crain's Cleveland Business - both referring to WMMS as a flagship station. Do these move the needle at all? Vjmlhds (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Vjmlhds (talk) is right on this. The Cleveland Indians themselves consider WMMS a flagship-1 of 2. If all other media call WMMS a "home", that's irrelevant because that is just a marketing term. The Indians consider WMMS their F.M. flagship, so that's what they are, NOT merely an affiliate.Stereorock (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: @Stereorock: My response is at the WMMS talk page under Stereo's new thread. I think it makes more sense to limit this discussion to a single location. Levdr1lp / talk 01:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Low-Resolution Radio Station Logo Upload Request

I'd really like it if somebody could upload the logo for a particular radio station. The only problem is that the resolution is very low (below 200 pixels) and various other uploaders are unwilling to upload the logo for me. They are all saying that the resolution is too low. I figured that you seem to favor low resolution for non-free images so, therefore, I'd like to pop the request to you. The logo is for WSYY-FM and the logo can be found somewhere within this Shockwave file (within the top left corner of it). Of course, I favor larger-sized logos but I recognize that you seem to favor lower-resolution for non-free images so, well, I'm requesting that you upload this one. 50.138.170.28 (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Just asking your opinion...

Just asking your opinion on something. What do you think of the 216 Barnstar I created? I replaced the admittedly lame Wiki Cleveland Award I gave you with this star that took me forever to get just right. I incorporated all 3 Cleveland sports teams in it...the orange background and the brown star (Browns), and the big C (Indians) colored in wine and gold (Cavaliers). I got the idea after seeing other barnstars created for Pittsburgh and Indianapolis. If I was gonna create an award, I wanted it to be something that showed a little bit of effort, and not something half baked. I know...you're not award guy, but I just wanted an outside voice to give me feedback on the design and look of it to see if it was worth my time. And the sentiment remains the same regarding the meaning of the award...disagreements aside, you've done a hell of a job on the various Cleveland related articles you've worked on, and I thought that since other cities had their own barnstars, we should have one too. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: The award is fine. I appreciate your enthusiasm. Levdr1lp / talk 05:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you ping me on the WMMS page? Vjmlhds (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: It was probably from Stereorock's talk page. The "Warrior" star is not a barnstar (created by consensus), but rather a personal user award (created individually by you). I thought Stereo should know this, as he has thanked you for his "first barnstar" on your talk page. Levdr1lp / talk 06:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I could have sworn you answered me back on the MMS page, but when I went there, the last thing there was my last statement. Vjmlhds (talk) 06:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: You weren't wrong. Stereorock removed my comment. Levdr1lp / talk 06:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember doing that. I don't even know how to remove a comment.Stereorock (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

@Stereorock: Maybe it was performed in error, but the edit history shows that you did remove my comment from the WMMS talk page. I also find it hard to believe that you don't know how to delete content. Editing doesn't get much simpler than adding and/or removing markup text. Levdr1lp / talk 18:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@Levdr1lostpassword:I know that about that time I was trying to put in a comment about what should be done to fix that page & my comments were deleted.Stereorock (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Stereorock: You don't need to {{ping}} me on my talk page -- I'm notified regardless. As for your response above, I'm still finding it hard to believe that you did anything but remove my comment from the WMMS talk page. Levdr1lp / talk 14:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I had a whole lengthy comment about how the flagship status of WMMS should be denoted which was not even added as other posts had been made in the meantime before it was ready to be posted. Is the ping thing automatic for everyone because this is the 1st place I've seen it.Stereorock (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

WELW-->WINT

I moved the WELW article to WINT (NE Ohio) to reflect the new call letters, and to avoid conflict with the WINT station in Florida. I also uploaded their new logo. I did it under fair use, and I made sure to credit the source as well as be specific in saying that I was only uploading it for the one article to show it's new logo, and that page is the only place I intend to use it. I just wanted full disclosure, and to show I did everything on the up and up. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Except this is not "on the up and up". There's a reason all broadcast station articles conform to the same basic standards -- WP:RADIONAMING. You also ignored an ongoing page move request at Talk:WINT_(NE_Ohio)#Requested_move. You are supposed to allow a discussion to play out, not act unilaterally w/o consensus! Levdr1lp / talk 21:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding WP:REQMOVES - Why would such a move need consensus? It certainly didn't look like a controversial move. The station changed it's call letters, I had references backing me up, pretty cut and dry. I certainly didn't expect there to be a dispute, so I went ahead and did it. Regarding WP:RADIONAMING the one thing I may have forgotten to do is set up WELW as a redirect...other than that, I did was was permitted - "CXXX" changed to "CYYY" so I moved the article accordingly. I fail to see where I did something that wasn't up to snuff. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: All non-admin users are required to wait until such a discussion CLOSES before proceeding w/ any change. You yourself don't think the move is controversial - so what? There was already an ongoing page move request! You don't have the right to unilaterally go in "fix" things (while simultaneously creating a mess of the page history) w/o regard to what other editors have to say. WP:BOLD does *not* give you license to ignore the instructions as layed out at WP:REQMOVES, nor violate the policy as detailed at WP:TITLE. Levdr1lp / talk 23:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll be honest...I didn't even KNOW you put in for this request until AFTER I moved the article. Once I moved the article, I checked the edit history, and saw you had previously reverted the other editor's changes (due to him cutting and pasting), and that's when I let both you and him know what I did. My edits in and of themselves didn't violate any policy...All I (might) be guilty of is not realizing the move request until after the fact. Don't be so quick to swing the stick before knowing all the facts. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: You knew there was a page move request BEFORE you performed the second move. Levdr1lp / talk 23:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Oh, as for WP:STICK, I don't see the connection. I'm tired of your "ready, fire, aim" approach to editing, and I will cite actual policy whenever I feel it's necessary to do so. Levdr1lp / talk 00:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The dye was cast by the time I made the second move. And I'm tired of your "holier than thou" attitude, where you feel the need to browbeat other editors and throw Wiki policy in their face like you're the great gatekeeper of Wikipedia...nobody likes a bully. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: As soon as you realized there was an ongoing page move request, you should have reverted your initial move and allowed the discussion to play out. Period. Instead, you chose to ignore it. Don't expect a thank you when you deliberately ignore policy. Levdr1lp / talk 01:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: By the way, feel free to stop the name-calling. Levdr1lp / talk 01:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

file:Bill Bixby The Magician 1973.JPG Don't make me angry...Vjmlhds (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)]]

@Vjmlhds: I am indifferent to your current emotional state (though I find it ironic that the same editor who whines about "bullying" resorts to juvenile threats). To reiterate, as soon as you realized there was an ongoing page move request, you should have reverted your initial move and allowed the discussion to play out. Period. There really isn't anything else to discuss. Levdr1lp / talk 14:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Please do not refer to me mockingly in edit summaries, whether directly or indirectly, as you did here. Levdr1lp / talk 14:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

To sum up - I'm a juvenile, mocking whiner, and you're a browbeating, holier-than-thou bully...fair enough. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: No, I'm not calling you anything. Your threat ("don't make me angry...") is juvenile, not you. It's also ridiculous. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "whine", but you do have a tendency to complain and blame editors who happen to point out your failure to follow basic site policies and guidelines. The fact is you deliberately circumvented the process as specified at WP:REQMOVES. Why should other editors have to put up with your unwillingness (or inability) to follow the rules? Levdr1lp / talk 15:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

C'mon Lev...you know darn well I wasn't actually threatening you. The Bixby/Banner/Hulk thing was meant in jest, and deep down you know it. As far as following the rules go, you certainly seem to have a knack for finding the most obscure Wiki policies. It's almost like a parent of a Little League baseball player who runs up to the umpire and says "Now wait...according to Rule 4, section 7, article G of the Capital City Little League manual, the bill of the player's cap must only be bent at a 20 degree angle". NOBODY knows every single Wiki rule. (I'll bet even Jimbo Wales doesn't know every single policy that's been implemented, and he invented the thing!) Long story short, not every single stupid thing needs for you go on the soapbox. If you see something that you think isn't right, just edit it...no need to bash people over the head with it, especially with obscure stuff. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: It's a little hard to believe your threat was anything but -- how do you possibly expect anyone to get the "jest" when you so abruptly alternate your tone? And there is nothing obscure about following basic policy. You know full well that you aren't supposed to act unilaterally in the middle of an ongoing discussion requiring consensus. Or if you don't, you should. You don't get to ignore basic policy and guidelines just b/c it's convenient for you. Levdr1lp / talk 16:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, you don't watch classic TV...Otherwise you would have known the "Don't make me angry" line was from the 1970s Incredible Hulk TV show. If somebody's really threatening you, they don't quote 70s TV. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: I know the show. I know the line. Your comment still came across as a threat. If that wasn't your intent, then maybe a "jest" isn't the best choice of words during a potentially heated exchange. Regardless, and back to the point, please do not act on your own when there is an ongoing discussion requiring consensus. Levdr1lp / talk 18:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Response

My response is on my talk page Mapsax (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Fresh Start.

"...Let's start fresh and get back to doing what we came here to do."

As a wise man once said "Correct-a-mundo!"....and also "Aaaayyy!" Vjmlhds (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: This actually made me laugh out loud. Reminds me (indirectly) of one of my favorite TV show lines: "Step into my office (men's bathroom)". Levdr1lp / talk 22:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who can quote Happy Days is OK by me. And I don't know what the deal is with the sock who sent me the barnstar...I'll be honest, I thought it came from you until I looked closer at it. Let's pretend it was, I'll consider it a peace offering, which I accept. Now allow me to pound the jukebox to get the music playing. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: For someone so concerned about conflict between other editors, Gloss apparently isn't above throwing out the occasional parting shot. Levdr1lp / talk 23:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Please leave my name out of your conversations. Thank you. Gloss • talk 23:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Gloss: Not a problem (after this {{ping}}), provided you do the same. Levdr1lp / talk 23:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, well. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: I missed your earlier comment about "pretending" the probable-sockpuppet's barnstar is from me. Please don't take this the wrong way, but no, I'm not going to pretend I gave you that barnstar. If anything, you should probably disregard it altogether. Levdr1lp / talk 00:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: I did *not* give you a barnstar, nor did I give you permission to attach my name to the one presented by the probable-sockpuppet. Please remove my name from the barnstar. Levdr1lp / talk 00:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The more I looked into it, the more that that particular star was something I didn't want to be associated with...you were right. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Thank you for removing my name from the barnstar that I did not give you. In the future, please do not apply my name to a barnstar, or any other award, that has not come directly from me. As for the probable sock, I intend to open a case a SPI later today. Levdr1lp / talk 13:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

WMMS GA Nomination

You had requested that I ask you first if it was OK to nominate the WMMS article for GA status before I went ahead with it, so your wish is my command.

Are you comfortable enough with the way the article sits for me to put in the nomination? If yes, great...if not, I'll hold off.

Your call.

Vjmlhds (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: No, I don't think it's anywhere near ready for GA review. Very little has changed since you withdrew your last nomination in January. If you were to nominate the article in its current state, I would argue strongly for a quick fail. Levdr1lp / talk 23:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I asked, you answered, we'll try again down the road. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: I apologize if I came across as blunt -- I simply see no reason in nominating the article when it will very likely fail the GA review, with or without my input. I know you may think the article is good enough for peer review, but let's be honest, you also get annoyed when I cite "wiki-ese". Do you really think the GA process will be any different? Do you think it will be any less detail-oriented than you think I am? Trust me when I say this: the article is just not good enough, particularly the history section. Not nearly. So please do not ask about this unless and until the page has improved considerably (i.e., it will pass the level of scrutiny as outlined at WP:RGA). Levdr1lp / talk 02:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I had no problems with your response. I've nominated other articles for GA, they've been rejected, and I've lived to see another day. I don't take everything to heart. They said they weren't good enough, and I took it in stride. You're the #1 contributor on the WMMS article (by miles), and if you don't think it'll pass the test, then I respect that. I'll leave any future nominations up to you. If you think it's ready, give it a shot and see what happens. But it'll be your call, and I'll respectfully step aside. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Let's take the GA process a little more seriously. There's no point in nominating an article if it will fail, and WMMS will fail if it's nominated. I would also rather the article is GA quality w/o any nom, then it have one or more GA noms that have failed. Levdr1lp / talk 02:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to make light of it or make a joke about it. I more than realize now what might look good to me wouldn't to others, so that's why I'm getting out of the GA nom business. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: You're free to do whatever you want. Levdr1lp / talk 04:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth...

OMW was goofing on the "Fox 19" edit on the WOIO article on his twitter page. It turns out the same editor made a similar edit regarding KGTV San Diego. On the surface, it looks like this was vandalism. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: The anon IP edit to WOIO was unsourced, and given how extraordinary the claim was, I reverted the edit rather than tagging it w/ {{citation needed}}. The anonymous blogger's take is mostly irrelevant. Levdr1lp / talk 14:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Putting OMW aside, it turns out the anon IP also did the same thing to articles for a pair of San Diego TV stations (KGTV and KNSD), so this looks more like vandalism than simply not adding in a reference. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Vjmlhds: If you're going to use Twinkle, please do not claim you performed one of my edits, like you did here. Levdr1lp / talk 14:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

OK...I see what happened. All I thought I was doing was warning the guy. The devil is in the details. Fair enough. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: I will assume you are now aware of this particular "detail". You may want to review similar template messages b/f posting them. Levdr1lp / talk 14:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I've since adjusted my message. Again, my intent was merely to tell the anon IP to stop, not take credit for something you did. I apologize for that. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: You don't need to apologize. Just know what you're posting. Levdr1lp / talk 14:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Numbers

No big deal. For me (and probably others), it's just easier to read in numeral form, but either way is acceptable. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Okay. Levdr1lp / talk 16:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Levdr1lp. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 15:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Award 4 U

• 
  Featured Article Contributor Ribbon

awarded to Levdr1lostpassword for all the work he put in to keeping the Cleveland article @ FA status.
Vjmlhds (talk) Vjmlhds 15:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: I had nothing to do with bringing the Cleveland article to featured-article status. It was first promoted to FA in 2005, long before I started editing. Levdr1lp / talk 05:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You may not have gotten it there, but there's no denying you do a lot to keep it there. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand how articles "get" there. The Cleveland article's status as a featured-article was last reviewed in 2007 -- again, long before I began editing. Levdr1lp / talk 00:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of what it takes to get an article noted as a GA or FA. My point was (and I'm probably at fault for not making it clear), that as you have become one of the top three contributors to the article, the work you have put in was done in such a way that it maintains (or certainly attempts to anyway) a high quality. User:Vjmlhds (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: I would prefer that you not present me with any more of your awards. Actual barnstars are fine. Personal user awards created by users other than yourself are fine. Otherwise, please, no more. Thank you. Levdr1lp / talk 02:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Ummm...what's wrong with the PUAs I created? They're no different than anyone elses, and God knows there's a bunch of them out there that everybody and their grandmother put into the mix. If I'm taking it wrong please tell me, but you're making it sound like other people's PUAs > mine. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: You've given me three of your awards since January, and that's fine. I simply don't want any more. This is not a comment on the quality of your personal user awards, or how they compare to any other awards. I am not saying there's anything "wrong" w/ your awards. I just think three is more than enough. Now please respect my request and let's move on. Levdr1lp / talk 04:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I can live with that. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: So that your PUAs aren't singled out from the rest, why don't you just limit it to actual barnstars (those created by consensus), or nothing at all. Levdr1lp / talk 01:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me...but just for the record, I've given my PUAs to other editors as well, and just about all of them have thanked me for them, and some have even put them on their user pages (I send them on their talk pages, and then they do with them as they please afterwords). I'll respect your wishes, but I just wanted it to be known that your view was in the minority in regards to my PUAs. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: I don't care what other editors have done with your awards. I do care that you respect my request, stop giving me your awards, drop the issue, and let us move on. If it makes you feel any better, then stop giving me any and all personal user awards (that way you're not singled out from other PUA editors). Barnstars are okay as they are created through consensus. Otherwise, no more awards. Okay? Levdr1lp / talk 05:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I said I would respect your request, and I'm gonna stick to it. Consider it dropped. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Thank you. Levdr1lp / talk 21:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Alternate Accounts

I only have this one and User:ShakespeareFan00. If you are concerned, I've no objection to a checkuser.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Uploaded images

The picture I used for the separate pics I uploaded, was a free use file uploaded from Flickr by Eric Drost. Another editor deleted the main pic because he felt that the logos on the bottom of the banners violated copyrights, even though the pic itself was under free use license. If you look at the edit history of the Cavs article, you'll see where the file that was deleted was taken out. But long story short...when I uploaded those images, it was off an existing Wiki file that had been listed as free use. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

If you also go through the histories of the pictures of the various Cavs banners I uploaded, you'll see that they were already reviewed by another editor and deemed eligible to be copied to Commons. As I said earlier, the main picture from which I got all these sections out of was deleted by a different editor, as he deemed that the little Cavs logos at the bottom of the banners violated copyrights, even though the picture itself was licensed as free use. This is probably where the confusion is stemming from. Vjmlhds (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: I nominated the Commons file for deletion for being a copyright violation, and shortly thereafter it was deleted as such. It follows, then, that your cropped uploads on the English Wiki are derivatives of a non-free file (meaning the uploads themselves are also non-free). Although the Flickr user gave away certain rights to the original photo, he has no right to freely distribute the Cleveland Cavaliers logos in the photo as they are under copyright. Please see Commons:Derivative works for more information. Levdr1lp / talk 18:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

If Flickr guy did something amiss, then that's on him...I was just going by the info he provided. If the pic was labeled non-free use to start with, I wouldn't have used it. Long story short, no shenanigans were intended on my part...I just thought I had a free use pic to work with, and went from there. And I've read Commons:Derivative works, so now I'll know what to watch for next time. You live and you learn. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: You're still responsible for what you upload. That said, you're not the first user to upload a file by mistake. Levdr1lp / talk 18:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Point taken, lesson learned...be more awake when uploading and make sure everything's up to snuff. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: I'm not teaching you a lesson. I'm fixing some of your mistakes (i.e., those in Cleveland/NEO files, articles, etc.). Levdr1lp / talk 02:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't implying anything towards you (and allow me to apologize if you took something I said the wrong way...believe me, no ill will was intended), I was talking about myself and paying more attention to the little details (like copyrighted logos on something that is otherwise a free work) that may come up and bite me if I'm not awake...that's all. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: The issue of copyright is not some "little detail"; it is fundamentally important to how Wikipedia functions as a free online encyclopedia. Please review WP:5 and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is free content if you plan to upload any additional files. Levdr1lp / talk 03:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Take it easy...no need to use a sledgehammer when a simple "next time, be more aware" will suffice. You make it sound like I'm flippantly disregarding Wikipedia rules/guidelines, when all that happened was I was unaware of the conflict that occurred with the logos on what I took at face value to be a free use photo. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: I'm not "using a sledgehammer". I'm addressing a fundamentally important concept you have neglected, one which you refer to as a "little detail" (i.e., copyright w/ respect to WP:Wikipedia is free content). Moreover, this is in response to a thread you started on my talk page. I didn't chase you down and beat you over the head with this, so spare me the sympathy plea. Levdr1lp / talk 03:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not looking for sympathy. I started the thread merely to explain why I did what I did. Remember, you were the one who went through all the pictures I uploaded and tagged them with WP:PUF templates. All I wanted to do was ask why. You explained it, I accepted the explanation, and I said I would pay more attention in the future. If the term "little detail" came off to you as me not taking this seriously, that wasn't my intent. Let me rephrase it...I will be more cognizant to make sure any picture I upload fits all criteria under free use, and not have any issues come up that may lead to conflict. OK? Vjmlhds (talk) 03:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: I have not gone through all of your uploads. You uploaded images to articles I follow, and I listed some of those uploads at WP:PUF. I'm more of less indifferent to how you go about editing, but as you pointed out, you came to me looking for an explanation. I think I've provided one. Levdr1lp / talk 04:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

You did, and I'm fine with it. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Then let's be done with this thread. Levdr1lp / talk 04:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

center|175px You grab a fork, I'll grab a fork, and let's stick it in this baby, because it is done. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Okay, we'll try this one more time. Let's be done with this thread. Levdr1lp / talk 04:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I was trying to incorporate the old saying "Stick a fork in it, because it's done", but I guess something got lost in translation. But the point I was trying to make stands...it's done. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Okay, we'll try this a third time... Let's be done with this thread. Levdr1lp / talk 21:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I swear....I think it's more you just wanna have the last word. I tried to say I was done humorously, and when that didn't work, I said it more plainly, but that didn't take either, apparently. For the third and (praying to God) final time...I asked, you answered, I'm cool with it, and as far as I'm concerned, it's a done deal. Finished, Finito, reached it's expiration date, and kiss it good-bye. If that isn't good enough for you, I don't know what is. Vjmhds (talk) 03:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Fourth attempt. Let's be done with this thread. Levdr1lp / talk 05:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

WKNR/WWGK

Not understanding why you removed all the info about Good Karma Brands and the "ESPN Cleveland" branding.

I thought I made it abundantly clear that GKB had changed it's name, and the company barely stops short of hitting you with a 2x4 in pushing the "ESPN Cleveland" brand.

I made sure to add (probably) more than enough references to back me up both on the company name and the branding (they put "ESPN Cleveland" on everything short of their underwear, so clearly they use that as much as if not even more so than the individual branding).

Vjmlhds (talk) 04:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: The FCC online database still identifies the station licensee as "Good Karma Broadcasting, LLC" for both WKNR and WWGK. I have no issue w/ using the new company name in the owner fields, but leave the licensee fields unchanged for now. As I said in my edit summary, the old LLC "Good Karma Broadcasting" may still exist as a subsidiary to the new LLC "Good Karma Brands". Practically speaking, are they the same organization? Probably. But the FCC online database differs, and there are two separate owner-licensee fields in {{Infobox radio station}} for cases just like this. As for "ESPN Cleveland", this secondary (or "collective") brand is already noted in the lead of both articles. There is no reason to clutter each infobox w/ redundant, non-specific information. "ESPN Cleveland" is not unique to either WKNR or WWGK, whereas "ESPN 850 WKNR" and "ESPN 1540 KNR2" are. Levdr1lp / talk 04:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

WAKS - JoJo

Not gonna squawk over this, but I thought since JoJo Wright had a Wiki article, he could be included in the WAKS listing.

I figured since he had an article, he'd be notable enough to mention.

I hear you about Premium Choice schedules and whatnot...just wanted to explain where I was coming from, that's all.

Vjmlhds (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: I agree with you completely about JoJo having an article, him being sufficiently nobtable, etc. Really. It's just that these PC schedules change so often, and just keeping track of who is and is not currently working a shift, regardless of day and time, is hard enough to follow. Trust me on this. I have scoured the internet and print mags for any and all information on Premium Choice. You may have noticed that I recently added/updated more than eighty references on the subject. Levdr1lp / talk 04:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I saw that on the Premium Choice article...nice job. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Just curious

Just curious about something... Why is it that you're so quick to slap templates on articles, but you never seem to want to actually do anything to improve them? There's no law that said YOU couldn't find a couple of references to add to the Browns article if you were so worried about the pop culture section not having any. It's like it's easier just to sit back and watch some poor other sucker do the actual work. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: It is the responsibility of the editor who adds content to properly source that content, so don't blame me when another editor neglects to verify his/her claims. It's not my job to do someone else's work, nor is it your job to critique my work. Kindly AGF, and move along. Levdr1lp / talk 07:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You know better than to accuse me of not verifying anything. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: You're reading too much into this. I was simply stating the fact of the matter: whoever added the pop culture content to the Cleveland Browns article failed to provide any sources. It doesn't really matter who that person is. What drew me to the article was the use of a non-free image which both lacked a fair use rationale and failed to conform to WP:NFCCP, namely "minimal extent of use". Levdr1lp / talk 15:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:My 43 The Block WUAB logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:My 43 The Block WUAB logo.png. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

NJCL pages and BLP

So, you've probably noticed all my reversions. In terms of fixing that page, I'd rather not throw the baby out with the bath water when I spot an error, since we're also working with kids who are really enthusiastic about their work here (although we both also know how much of an understatement that is). In terms of citations, I would suggest leaving them a note in the future, as there is nothing wrong with people adding unsourced material, as there is a huge difference between libel and good faith additions to the site. I see where you're coming from though, but I would rather we encourage editors to edit here, instead of revert their good-faith edits the second we see something wrong with what they did. Still, I am fully for reverting people who write creepy material into the pages (as seen on the state chapters one), so I am not completely for just adding unsourced text. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ktr101: While I agree with the general sentiment you've expressed (encouraging involvement, etc.), I stand by removing unsourced material about living individuals, particularly of minors: "Contentious material about living persons... that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." It's not my job to educate any one editor or group of editors about this site's policies and guidelines. If you feel so strongly about treating these "kids" with special care, then I certainly won't get in your own way of doing so. In the mean time, however, please do not violate site policy just b/c you happen to disagree with my edits. You are free to contact each of these editors individually or start a discussion at the National Junior Classical League talk page to explain why such content may be removed at any time. Levdr1lp / talk 13:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Just so you're aware, this are legitimate social media pages and they are official branches of the NJCL. I have no idea why you would suspect otherwise since anyone who goes against this has a bunch of people breathing down their necks. Also, do you think anyone is going to care if we violate site policy here? Of course not, and I am not going to start making a war out of this. However, we should assume good faith and fix the issues here instead of becoming deletionists and removing legitimate social media sites and information. If you don't like that it's uncited, then fix it so that the material is well-sourced instead of removed. Finally, don't lecture me on the rules, as I am well-versed in them already. Because of this, I also know when to ignore them in the rare occasions that they should be bent and not to be a dick when things aren't going your way. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ktr101: I'm not "lecturing" you on the rules; I was linking to an important site policy, one which you think is okay to ignore in this instance. If you don't wish to be reminded of a particular policy, then perhaps you shouldn't selectively conform to it. As for the social media pages, it is already well established that such sites are excessive and not appropriate for an article's external links section. If the official site URL redirected to a social media page, then you might have a case. But given the fact this organization not only has an official website separate from any social media platform, but which also links to the social media accounts in question, there is absolutely no reason to include them -- see WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Levdr1lp / talk 16:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I was just thinking about this while driving to work, as I was wondering if you wanted to work on collaborating to expand that article now, mostly because what is there exists to varying degrees of information. What's your opinion on that approach, as I have photos to add of events, but I feel like it wouldn't be worth it if there was nothing there talking about it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ktr101: Your photos are excellent. And believe it or not, I'm no deletionist -- in general, I feel the more content, the better. That said, I'm in no mood to reinterpret basic site policies or guidelines. Add whatever you want so long as it reasonably conforms to established editing practices. I myself will focus on state-level content whenever possible (admittedly, not as often as I would like). My stance on BLP material has evolved somewhat; I now think it is completely inappropriate to post unsourced BLP information on minors (in other words, just about any JCL member- national, state, or local). This really should be a hard and fast rule on this site, and quite frankly, I would be very surprised if my view has not already been expressed by other experienced community members. Levdr1lp / talk 18:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I do agree with you on the information part, although I am more hesitant to add photos of them if they're easily identifiable. In any case, would you like to fix that page up so that it makes a bit more sense to read, as it currently is all over the place in many respects, and I would like to have more of a history on there, amongst other things. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ktr101: I can't imagine any good reason to identify any individual JCL member in a photograph. Keep it general-- large crowds of nameless faces, or photos w/o people at all. State chapters of the National Junior Classical League obviously needs work, and I will contribute whenever possible. I wouldn't worry about the quality of its current state, however. An incomplete entry on state-level chapters is better than no entry at all. Levdr1lp / talk 13:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Disappearance of Beverly Potts

Can you help me bring Disappearance of Beverly Potts up to Good Article or Featured Article? There's a book (Twilight of Innocence: The Disappearance of Beverly Potts) that we could cannibalise, and facts are not copyrighted. Paul Austin (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

WCLV

I apologize for reverting your new logo.

You were right, on my computer it kept coming up as the old logo, which was I reverted back. Everything's now up to snuff, and again I was at error for reverting your new logo.

Vjmlhds (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Common mistake, no harm done. Levdr1lp / talk 18:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Cavs radio rights

I heard the Cavs were On the Radio. I think they have 15 affiliates.

Vjmlhds (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Huh?? I added a ref last night to the WMMS article which indicates there are 17 or so affiliates in the Cavs radio network. Levdr1lp / talk 20:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You wouldn't happen to know anybody who was wanting to know the exact time the Cavs-iHeart contract expires would you? Somebody that wanted facts, and not speculation. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: I am interested in knowing when the WTAM/WMMS/iHeartMedia Cleveland radio contract expires. If you have any reliable sources addressing this, I would appreciate you sharing them. Levdr1lp / talk 22:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I've looked all over the place (because I kinda got curious myself)...the most recent info I found anywhere about the Cavs/Clear Channel (now iHeart) contract was the 2008 contract that ran through 2012-13. I did Google searches, I've looked up and down Cleveland.com (Plain Dealer) and Ohio.com (Beacon Journal), and there is nothing there about the Cavs and CC/iHeart re-upping post 2008 — 2012/13. All I can surmise is that the Cavs apparently quietly re-upped after the 2012-13 season with CC/iHeart (since they've been on WTAM all through this time), but to when the contract ends...I have no idea, nor can I find anything saying definitively when it does end. I know it doesn't do you any good, but I just wanted you to know I did try to find out, but I just plain old couldn't find anything. The most recent stories that come up if the words "Cavaliers" and "radio" are put together are stories about Dan Le Batard putting up those goofy LeBron billboards in Akron. Everything else is old news. Vjmlhds (talk) Vjmlhds 23:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Thanks. I've had just as little luck (obviously). It would appear the PD/NEOMG/Cleveland.com, Crain's, that Elyria paper, the Beacon Journal, Scene magazine, etc., are ALL failing to do their jobs here. Professional journalists aren't asking the simplest of questions. Levdr1lp / talk 23:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, let's be fair...that #23 guy is kinda a higher priority than the local radio contract. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: LeBron James' returning to Cleveland is irrelevant. The Cavaliers contract was due to expire at the end of the 2013–14 season. All of 2013 and nearly half of 2014 comes and goes, and what is there to show for it? Absolutely no reporting on the broadcast rights. It's important to know because there's no reason we (Cavs fans, radio listeners, and the public at large) shouldn't know. The public airwaves are public, at least nominally, and the teams' facilities are heavily subsidized w/ public tax dollars. I have a right to know if the Cavs are airing on this station or that station and for how long. These writers are being lazy. I'm not singling out any individual reporter, but yeah, the news community as-a-whole definitely "dropped the ball", no pun intended, on this one. Levdr1lp / talk 23:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow...I never saw you this wound up before. I don't even know if the PD even has a media reporter any more. Back in the day, they had guys like Tom Feran and Roger Brown specifically assigned to the media beat. I know R.D. Heldenfels is the media guy at the ABJ. The suburban papers...forget about it. These days, if you want local media news, you almost have to go to places like Ohio Media Watch (before you start...I know the deal with OMW...I'm just trying to make a point) because the traditional places aren't gonna do it. By the way...LeBron coming back is the furthest thing from irrelevant - gotta have some perspective here. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: On LeBron- Yes, he is irrelevant w/ regard to reporting-in-general. Journalism is not a zero sum game. "Sorry, but we can't report on [insert important local issue] because a high profile professional athlete has returned to town." Are you kidding me? The word that comes to mind is "unacceptable". There was reporting on the Browns broadcast rights. There was reporting on the Indians broadcast rights. There was no such reporting on the Cavs radio rights. That's unacceptable (and, quite frankly, ridiculous). Again, I'm not blaming any single person, but local media in general. On OMW- Ohio Media Watch is not news. News is accountable (at least in theory); anonymous bloggers are not. Lastly, on characterizations- No, I'm not "wound up", and I would appreciate if you would refrain from characterizing my habit/mood/tone. Comment on content, not the editor. Levdr1lp / talk 08:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

While LeBron returning isn't irrelevant, I agree about the media slacking off on the radio rights issue. I'm WELL AWARE on your stance on OMW, I only brought OMW up to make a point about how the traditional media has seemed to "punt" media related stories over to places such as OMW (or Radio Insight or All Access and the like) these days. And I wasn't trying to attack you, it's just I had never seen you have a strong opinion as you did about the reporting. Apologies if you think I went over the line...wasn't my intent. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: LeBron's return is irrelevant with respect to the responsibility local media has to report the news. Quite frankly, the complete lack of coverage on the Cavs radio rights is downright embarrassing. If anything, LeBron's return magnifies the issue's importance. Levdr1lp / talk 17:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it's more of a mentality in the modern media of "Look at the big shiny thing over there!" (LeBron), and a lack of interest in the more mundane stuff (radio rights). LeBron stuff will get more hits on Cleveland.com than the radio rights. Not saying it's right...just saying that's how it is. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: I think you're seriously overestimating the time and effort necessary to adequately report on this. There were no such issues when the Browns rights were up, nor when the Indians rights were up. There's no excuse here. Either local media as a whole is being lazy, or there is a deliberate attempt on the Cavs part to keep this out of the press. Granted, some outlets are more at fault than others. Levdr1lp / talk 17:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's more laziness than anything else. We're not dealing with CIA level stuff here, if somebody wanted to know, they can find out. And to be frank, since #23 took his talents to South Beach 4 years ago, the Cavs turned into an afterthought. I wouldn't be exaggerating in saying OSU football leapfrogged the Cavs and became the #3 sport in town from when LBJ bolted until he came back (just look at the coverage the Buckeyes get in the PD), thus a lot of stuff (including the Cavs radio rights being re-upped) got swept under the rug. It was only after the prodigal son returned home that the Cavs became a story again. This is a Browns town first and foremost...somebody sneezes in Berea, it's a story, thus the radio rights there are a big deal. The Tribe is a solid #2 in town, thus their radio rights will get a mention as well. I don't know any other way to put it - when LeBron left, so did a lot of interest in the Cavs, and when he came back the interest magically reappeared...and the media responded in kind each way. Again, it isn't right, just how it is. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the PD finally woke up. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Yesterday's announcement confirms just how ridiculous this situation would've been without such confirmation on the status of the team's rights. And while the PD may not be asleep, they are certainly proving themselves timid (as are Channels 3, 5, 8, 19, Scene, the Lorain paper, the Beacon, Crain's, etc.). No end date? Really? This isn't reporting so much as repeating the team's press release. Levdr1lp / talk 14:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Also, I remember reading a quote once, something like "It's only news if someone doesn't want the information to get out- everything else is advertising." Levdr1lp / talk 17:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Jeff and Flash

I'd like to know your opinion on something for I go knee-deep into it.

I was thinking about writing an article about Jeff and Flash. I'd think because of their long tenure, success, and influence during the "glory days" of WMMS in the 70s and 80s, that they'd fit WP:N standards. But I'd rather be sure before I put in all the time, research, and effort it would take to put together a halfway decent article. It would be a kick in the gut to put in all that work and have somebody from the Wiki nether-regions (not referring to you, because you know J&F and their history) say "I never heard of them...they don't fit WP:N standards...blah, blah, blah". and nominate it for deletion.

Basically, I just want to be certain it would be worth the effort before proceeding. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Ehh, I'd have to say no. I think Jeff and Flash benefited from the station more than the station benefited from Jeff and Flash. I think it's a stretch to say the show (or its hosts) were particularly influential (the whole "Zoo" concept was lifted straight from Scott Shannon at Z100). The show was never syndicated, and there isn't much coverage outside Cleveland on the pair. They had a long, successful stint in mornings, and they obviously should be in the WMMS article, but that's about it. Compare the two to the coverage Kid Leo or Donna Halper has received, and you'll see what I mean. I wouldn't even necessarily put them on par w/ Big Chuck and Lil' John. Levdr1lp / talk

Thanks for saving me a lot of work. With all the talk we've done about WMMS lately, it got me thinking about Jeff and Flash, and seeing as I did articles for Lanigan and Malone, the idea rolled around in my head about doing an article for them, but you're right...J&F were spokes, but WMMS was the wheel. Lanigan basically put WMJI on his back to make it a powerhouse (and Jimmy Malone certainly benefited as well). Vjmlhds (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice job.

Just wanted to tell you - nice job putting together the articles for the Indians, Browns, and Cavaliers radio networks.

Vjmlhds (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Thanks (though I did not start the Cleveland Indians Radio Network article). Levdr1lp / talk 18:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I see that now...but your handprints are all over it, so I just figured you started that one as well. Looking at it, that article wasn't touched in 4 years, but then when WMMS came aboard, it really started to get worked on, and you were front and center. So you didn't start it, but you did get it into decent shape. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: No, it was actually only a redirect until February 2013. There was no article at the target until after the Indians announced the WMMS simulcast in January 2013. Levdr1lp / talk 19:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, at the end of the day, nice job on getting it in order. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Okay. Levdr1lp / talk 19:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Just so we're clear.

Just so there's no mistake - I am not the "Fruit" guy on the Firelands article. Go check out the IP if you have any doubts. I don't have a sock account, nor do I try to vandalize anything. I know a few years ago I pulled a stunt, but that was then. Any changes I made to the Firelands article have been backed up by sources (whether you agree with the sources is another matter) and have come in good faith and with good intentions. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: I'm going to refrain from commenting on the vandalism-only account for now. As for your "sources", none explicitly state that "Vacationland" is a term for "Firelands". Levdr1lp / talk 21:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Fruit has been indefinitely blocked, as he's vandalized other pages as well. All I'm doing is trying to make it as clear as I can that IT WASN'T ME. When I saw what he did on Firelands, the first thing I thought was "Oh crap, Levdr's gonna think it was me." So I'm telling you straight up, man to man, that was not me. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Again, I'm going to refrain from commenting on the vandalism-only account for now. Levdr1lp / talk 22:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a comment, all I'm doing making sure undo fingers don't get pointed my way. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)