User talk:Levdr1lp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Levdr1lostpassword)
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Ohio Media Watch (December 2013)[edit]

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)

Service Award[edit]

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)

Just so it's there[edit]

(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[edit]

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.[edit]

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.png Given to Levdr1lp 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[edit]

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[edit]

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.[1][2] 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[edit]

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)
@Levdr1lp: 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[edit]

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)[edit]

Original Barnstar.png 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.[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

White flag waving.svg 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[edit]

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)

Warrior Star[edit]

Wiki Warrior Star.jpg 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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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[edit]

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...[edit]

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)
@Levdr1lp: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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Fresh Start.[edit]

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

Henry Winkler Fonzie 1977.JPG 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[edit]

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...[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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

Award 4 U[edit]

FA Contributor Ribbon.png Awarded to Levdr1lp 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

NJCL pages and BLP[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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.[edit]

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.[edit]

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 is making sure undo fingers don't get pointed my way. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I would hope that with the revelation of the 2nd "Fruit" account coming to light, that you could plainly see that I am in no way connected with it. It's obvious that his sole purpose in life was to get his jollies out of going to random articles and causing trouble. You should know after all this time I don't roll that way. I worked too hard on the Firelands article to find (what I thought were) good sources (I was even researching 1960s beauty pageants for crying out loud), so why would I want throw it all away with nonsense and insults? Some editors are what I like to call "Joker editors" - in reference to the Joker in The Dark Knight. Remember the line that best described the Joker in the movie - "some people just want to see the world burn" - well people like "Fruit" you can say "just want to see Wikipedia burn" with their insane edits. So I would kindly appreciate you dropping any suspicions you have that I'm "Fruit"...you wouldn't have opened the SPI if you didn't think I was. So come on...enough already, OK. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
@Vjmlhds: I don't think it's appropriate for me to discuss this here. Please direct your comments to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vjmlhds. Levdr1lp / talk 00:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
It most certainly IS appropriate for you to discuss here...you were the one who wanted the SPI to start with. Quite frankly, I find it insulting that you would even THINK I was "Fruit" I don't exactly appreciate being thought of as a mindless vandal, as "Fruit" obviously is. I'm really beginning to think you just did this out of spite, as there's no logical reason I would even CONSIDER doing WP:GHBH - let alone be a sock. I came to you to try to put out the fire before it started, because I know how it looked. And as further evidence has shown, "Fruit" has made a habit out of doing this to various articles and various editors. Being compared to "Fruit" is essentially character assassination on your part - "Watch this guy, he's no good". Not cool - that's all I'm saying. Vjmlhds (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
@Vjmlhds: This was not some rushed "character assasination". I laid out my suspicions -- with supporting evidence -- in a plain and deliberate manner. Now it's up to an administrator to take whatever action, if any, is necessary (I can't help it if there's currently at backlog of cases at WP:SPI). And let's not forget that I already gave you the benefit of the doubt once before in April 2012 regarding Media in Cleveland, nor was I the only editor who doubted your "but my cousin did it" story. You may want to think twice before equating my opening a SPI case w/ a personal attack -- that in itself may be considered a personal attack on YOUR part ("Serious accusations require serious evidence."). In my opinion, and given what information I have access to, there is nothing that definitively proves you were socking at the Firelands article. At the same time, the timing of your edits around "Fruit's", along w/ "Fruit" lashing out at me in his edit summary, makes me wonder. This was also in the context of an ongoing content dispute. We all get frustrated sometimes. One time you even considered retiring. So, in my view, it's not outside the realm of possibility that you might've attempted to take out your frustration on me anonymously. Now this really is the last I have to say about this on my talk page. If you have anything further to say, please take it to the SPI case page. Levdr1lp / talk 02:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Really, dude...all you have to do is look at "Fruit's" edits (under both his names) and know that's not how I operate. Look at "Fruit's" edits under his original name...if you compare his and my edit history, you'll see that we made simultaneous edits on October 3...he was screwing around on editor's user pages, while I was working on the WTAM article. There's no feasible way that I could have done both at the exact split second. My point is that he has done this garbage before, got blocked, came back under a new name and went at it again. Just so happens, he came across the Firelands article. That was just pure luck. I don't know how else to convince you otherwise. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
@Vjmlhds: What was Fruit's "original name"? Are you talking about User:Fruit is for life and for the articles also, User:Fruit is good for life. Fruit to the articles, or some other account? Levdr1lp / talk 04:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The second one (Fruit is good for life...). At least that's the name he used on Oct 3. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
@Vjmlhds: Ok, nevermind. I thought you meant there was a confirmed master sock for both "Fruit" accounts. Levdr1lp / talk 04:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

WOIO Section[edit]

I moved the list of shows from the beginning of the article to the "Programming" section. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

OSU-IMG[edit]

Wow...nice job. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 23:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Half a barnstar[edit]

Starhalf Hires.png The Half Barnstar
For repeatedly getting into heated conflicts with each other, and repeatedly resolving their conflicts with minimal collateral damage, I award Vjmlhds and Levdr1lp each one half of this barnstar. In all seriousness, you guys are valued contributors even if you do bump heads once in a while. Keep up the good work. Ivanvector (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Ivanvector. Levdr1lp / talk 23:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Who woulda thunk it...all these years of us feudin', fussin', and fightin' got us a barnstar. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
@Vjmlhds: It was certainly unexpected. Levdr1lp / talk 04:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank You.[edit]

Fistpound2.jpg Thank you very much for the barnstar...it was unexpected, but very much appreciated. Please accept this gesture for what it truly represents...it's not an award, but a legitimate heartfelt fist bump. P.S., if you truly would have kept cool if you were in my shoes, you're a better man than I am. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)|link=User_talk:Vjmlhds]]

@Vjmlhds: One small proviso. Please note the hidden text I included in my post to your talk page. You can add a wikilink to the image itself simply by placing "link=" in the [[File:Example.jpg|link=Link title]] markup. As an example, I have linked to your talk page using the "fist bump" photo above. Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 23:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Jim Lachey[edit]

You were right...Lachey moved to left tackle when he went to the NFL, and that's why I had LT stuck in my head. I never said I was perfect. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: No problem. My concern was not so much whether you were right or wrong, but over the lack of any source to support your claim. Levdr1lp / talk 22:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Cavs navbox[edit]

The reason that WUAB should get a mention is because they provide a local over-the-air outlet for the team. I'd agree with you more if the simulcasts were on another cable network, but since channel 43 has a distinct purpose, it sets it apart a little bit. It's the same scenario the Indians have had with STO/WKYC since Fox bought STO out...The Tribe throws a handful of simulcast games channel 3's way to have an over-the-air presence. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: I'm still not convinced, but I also don't care enough to pursue it. Levdr1lp / talk 15:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
@Vjmlhds: On second thought, WUAB is the only media outlet from that group (Radio flagships, Radio Network, Spanish Radio, & Fox Sports Ohio), which does not carry games throughout the season. Those 5 games effectively amount to specialty programming, and while I don't have a problem including the 5-games-info in the WUAB article, the station itself really does not belong in the team navbox. Moreover, the Cavaliers website makes no mention of WUAB on its "Where to Watch?" page. Levdr1lp / talk 15:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
@Vjmlhds: On third thought, I'm going to let this go for now. I'm conflicted at the moment. Levdr1lp / talk 15:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I feel like I'm watch a tennis match here :) Seriously though, here's the best way to look at this...WUAB had long been the free TV home of the Cavs, while FS Ohio was the cable home, each airing X amount of games. In 2006, a new deal was arranged to where FS Ohio would be carrying the bulk of the games, while channel 43 carried 5 via simulcast So the relationship between the Cavs and channel 43 goes back 20 some odd years. They don't carry as many games as they used to, but they still carry some (and will also air playoff games - a foreign concept around here the last 4 years, but shouldn't be an issue now), and serve a distinct purpose of being the team's over-the-air outlet. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
@Vjmlhds: The team's history w/ the station is irrelevant w.r.t. the navbox. Levdr1lp / talk 16:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Fruit - revealed.[edit]

For what it's worth, I got a notification (because my name was mentioned) which led me to the talk page of Materialscientist. Long story short, it turns out our old buddy "Fruit" was a sock (one of many) of Evlekis - who apparently has been a very bad boy for a very long time. So now we know, and as G.I. Joe used to say "knowing is half the battle". Vjmlhds (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: I'm glad "Fruit" was exposed. Levdr1lp / talk 13:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Jim Donovan pic[edit]

Being as the pic is under a free use license, wouldn't that mean that the pic is fair game to use anywhere on Wikipedia?

Or am I missing something somewhere?

Vjmlhds (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Yes, it's fair game. But I'll think twice about putting in the effort of obtaining such a free file if you're just going to plaster it in multiple articles. Why don't you crop your own version from the source file? Better yet, why don't you find a different free file of Donovan? What good is it if my cropped version is in every article related to Donovan? I cropped a new version specifically for the network article, and I just wish you would respect that. Using (or, your case, re-using) a free file is easy. Finding one isn't always so easy. Levdr1lp / talk 19:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Wasn't trying to ruffle any feathers. I took your advice and uploaded my own version from the source file. Just thought I was playing by the rules. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets![edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello Levdr1lp, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015.
Happy editing,
Vjmlhds 16:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

@Vjmlhds: Happy Holidays. Levdr1lp / talk 12:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

WFHM-FM[edit]

There's no original research...if you look at reference #6 in the article, you'll see that it's straight from Salem itself.

In the reference they:

  1. use the CCM acronym for Contemporary Christian Music
  2. say that most of their CCM stations use the Fish branding

No OR here...all info I added has a source to back it up.

Vjmlhds (talk) 15:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: You already opened a discussion on the article's talk page. Levdr1lp / talk 17:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Enough.[edit]

I get it...you've been gone for awhile, and want to reestablish your presence. But you're barking up the wrong tree, in the wrong yard, with the wrong dog. All you're doing is trying (once again) to pick fights over the most minor of things just to say "Look at me! The great Wiki upholder!" Go do it to somebody that hasn't been dealing with you for half a decade, and can read you like a book. As Austin Carr would say "Get that weak stuff outta here. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: You really are reading way too much into my editing. I'm not "reestablishing my presence" so much as I'm playing catch up. I've been extremely busy the past couple of months with virtually no down time left for Wikipedia, and now I'm eager to get back. My primary focus has always been local radio in Cleveland, so you shouldn't be at all surprised I'm continuing to focus on that same general topic now. I can't help if our interests sometimes overlap. I can, however, control how I engage you -- I've always been tough, but also fair. I always try to follow this site's policies and guidelines closely and deliberately, not just over content but also in how to interact w/ fellow editors. I expect no less from you or anyone else. This sort of posturing on your end achieves nothing, and worse, potentially escalates whatever perceived conflict may exist. In the future, I hope you choose to discuss things w/ me in a calm, civil, and constructive manner, b/c I won't tolerate anything less on my talk page. Levdr1lp / talk 21:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not your place to be "tough", because your standards as to how policies are interpreted are not the gospel. The Bob Frantz pic certainly belongs on the WHK page because he is promoted as their primary local personality (just like Triv is on WTAM). Just so happens there was already a free use pic with Frantz in it that I could adapt to use for the page. Doug Dieken is most certainly a VERY notable part of Browns history and lore, and his pic on the Browns article is certainly "pertinent". "OMG! - The pic is now on 3 articles instead of 2 out of over 4 million on Wikipedia!" The issue isn't that I'm not following Wiki guidelines, but that I'm not following them to your standards. That is where the conflict lies. Remember - he who rides the high horse too much is more likely to be thrown off...and getting thrown off a horse hurts. Vjmlhds (talk) Vjmlhds 21:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
@Vjmlhds: I am not going to discuss three different content issues all at once in a single thread. Please either start separate sections for each issue on my talk page, or, preferably, open discussions on each of the relevant article talk pages. That said, as a show of good faith -- and since you're so insistent on the matter -- I am willing to drop the issue of the Frantz photo provided there is some clarification that the image does not illustrate him in his capacity as a WHK employee. I suppose his appearance hasn't changed too dramatically since the WTAM photo was taken. Now can you please dial back the aggressive tone? I really would prefer to move on, and I suspect you would too. Levdr1lp / talk 22:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Beatles/HOF[edit]

May I ask how it's incorrect to state that all four Beatles members are two-time inductees? They all got inducted as a group, and then were each inducted individually.

The lead in John Lennon's article had already included the fact he was a double inductee - all I did was add the same info to the other three.

I understand your point about not including individual things in the group article, but each individual does have 2 R&R HOF inductions under their belt (one as part of the group, and one for their solo career).

So how would saying that Paul McCartney is a two-time HOF inductee be wrong?

You can't take his time with the Beatles away from the rest of his career when talking about his lifetime accomplishments. That would be like saying we can't call LeBron James a two-time NBA Champion/two-time Gold Medal winner/three-time State Champion because those came as part of a team. The four members shared a group induction, and then each had an individual induction, therefore it is factually correct to say that they've all been inducted twice (and all easily verified).

Vjmlhds (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW Here's a source straight from the Rock Hall itself calling Lennon a two-time inductee. So if THEY can call people two-time inductees - why can't WE? Vjmlhds (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Ballgame! Vjmlhds (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

TWL HighBeam check-in[edit]

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

  • Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
  • Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Michigan templates[edit]

3-pixel accent with white text
Michigan Wolverines

The reason for the change was WP:CONTRAST. WP:CFB & WP:CBB are starting to go through the changes. White looks better on the darker background than the gold. It is more readable. See the infobox to the side and you can see a discussion on my talk page about this. Dirtlawyer1 has given reason pretty clear. Corky | Chat? 21:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: Thanks for the clarification and update. Like Jweiss11 on your talk, I'm all for improved WP:ACCESS so long as the white text is consistent across all other relevant NCAA team templates. Levdr1lp / talk 21:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I am currently going through and changing them if they need changed, as well as updating the colors if needed per the schools websites. Corky | Chat? 00:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Browns/STO[edit]

Bruce Drennans's daily opening on Drennan Live is the indicator that the Browns and STO anre no longer in tandem. He always begins the show with "Welcome to Drennan Live - here on your TV home of Indians baseball, cable home of Browns football, and sister network of Cavaliers basketball and Columbus Blue Jackets hockey - we are Sports Time Ohio!" Well in the last couple of weeks, he has dropped any mention of the Browns from the opening - he only mentions the Indians, Cavaliers, and Blue Jackets (which FSO/STO has the rights to). The removal of "cable home of the Browns" from Drennan's spiel is the most telling sign that the Browns and STO have gone their separate ways. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: While that may be the case, it does not verify your claim. In the absence of a reliable source which explicitly states that STO & the Browns have ended their broadcast partnership, we're left to wait until the 2015 season/preseason begins before changing the content of the Browns template, the STO article, etc. Also, if you again feel the urge to change this content unilaterally, please first discuss the issue and help establish consensus at Talk:SportsTime_Ohio#Browns where there is already an ongoing discussion on this topic. Levdr1lp / talk 01:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
The burden of proof is on you to try to show that the Browns and STO are in fact still in business together. I don't have to verify anything, as I simply don't mention STO in Browns related stuff. The verification comes when information is added, not subtracted. If something isn't included in the article, then there's no need to verify it. For example, if I write in the article about the sun that the sun is blue, then yes, I'd have to verify it. But if I don't add it into the article, then there's nothing that needs to be verified. All I did was remove any mention of STO. If the Browns and STO wind up working together, they can always be re-added (w/ verification), but all signs indicate they aren't, thus the prudent thing is to not mention them at all until we have clear confirmation one way or the other. There's no to need to verify anything if there's nothing there to verify. Vjmlhds (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@Vjmlhds: Please direct your comments to Talk:SportsTime Ohio#Browns where there is already an ongoing discussion on this topic. Thank you. Levdr1lp / talk 15:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

ENOUGH![edit]

You WILL cease and desist reverting my edits. The only one who thinks they are "unconstructive" is you, and quite frankly, your opinion matters very little, since you always have and always will have a personal grudge against me. I DO NOT need YOUR permission to make edits to Wikipedia - especially as nothing I'm doing violates any Wiki policy (spare me WP:BRD - you can do that on each and every edit somebody makes if you really wanted to.) Vjmlhds (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

BTW - please read the last line carefully.

@Vjmlhds: There is already an ongoing discussion at Talk:SportsTime_Ohio#Browns. More importantly, you have already agreed to drop the issue of the STO-Browns partnership (how do you expect to be taken seriously if you can't even stay true to your own word?). You don't need my "permission" to make changes, but you are obligated to help reach & (ultimately) defer to consensus. No matter how strongly you may feel about a particular point, you are not entitled to make unilateral changes to stable content when those changes are under dispute. Levdr1lp / talk 23:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Take your dispute and stick it somewhere. I have added a reference straight from the Browns which clearly states that WEWS is the TV home of the team, and makes absolutely no mention of STO. To put blatantly false info about WKYC in the article just shows you're more interested in picking a fight than doing what's good for Wikipedia. So to quote Chris Jericho, kindly shut the hell up. You're so full of BS your eyes are brown. (and save the WP:Personal crying - shoulda thought of that when you accused me of being a sock.) Vjmlhds (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@Vjmlhds: I think your comments speak for themselves. Either discuss the disputed content or don't. Levdr1lp / talk 23:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
All you've done the last 5 years is pick fights with me...how can any reasonable person take your criticism of me seriously or any of my edits seriously knowing that you've spent the last half-decade being my own personal troll. The content is indisputable - you put blatantly false content in the article just to pick a fight, because I dared not ask your permission first. Go do what you do best and insult some other editor's character and accuse them of being dirty. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@Vjmlhds: While it is true that I reverted your edit regarding WEWS-TV, you also keep conveniently overlooking the fact that you repeatedly removed the content on STO, an issue we previously settled on the STO talk page. I made it clear in my edit summary that you were free to restore the WEWS-TV content provided that you leave the STO content intact. It's not my responsibility to selectively restore content you have removed. Levdr1lp / talk 23:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I never touched the template - all I did was edit the list of broadcasters article to reflect updated information, which was WEWS over WKYC, and I removed the STO stuff because (judging by the reference I included straight from the Browns) STO is a non-factor. And you can easily edit the article in a way that had WEWS in it...you were just looking to pick a fight. I notice a pattern - you lay low for awhile, then you come out of the clear blue and come up swinging...it's like you have withdrawals and need a fix or something. Go find another dealer. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@Vjmlhds: To reiterate, you agreed on the STO talk page to wait to remove/update content on the STO-Browns partnership until one of two things happens: either a reliable source presents itself which specifically addresses the STO-Browns partnership for the 2015 NFL season; or, the 2015 NFL begins, at which point it will become clear if the STO-Browns partnership continues. You agreed to that, but you didn't abide by it, so here we are. Don't be surprised that your info on WEWS-TV was reverted-- that edit included changes to the STO content, something you keep overlooking here. It's not my responsibility to selectively restore agreed-upon content you have removed. Levdr1lp / talk 00:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Major difference between agreeing to something and simply not pushing forth to save myself a migraine. I never agreed to anything, I just backed off because quite honestly, I didn't feel like arguing anymore. Dealing with you is really comparable to dealing with a 6-year old that keeps wanting a cookie - sometimes you just have to give them the freaking cookie to shut them up. But at the end of the day, you know I'm right - you just want to be difficult. That's OK...they're come a day when you'll have to eventually put a sock in it. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@Vjmlhds: Yes, you did agree in principle when you dropped the issue at the STO talk page. You agreed to allow the STO-Browns content to remain as is, even if you disagreed with the reasoning behind it. You are, however, welcome to further discuss the STO-Browns partnership (or lack thereof) if you are no longer satisfied with the existing consensus-by-default. Just try to stick to what you agree to this time around, whatever the outcome. Levdr1lp / talk 04:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you![edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services


Sign up now


Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Vjmlhds has requested an unblock with an apology. I'm abstaining from participating in the unblock ritual, because I'm a relatively new admin. I'm not sure if you feel like commenting or not, but if you do, I'd try to keep any provocation or gravedancing out of the discussion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The recent exchange and the block[edit]

Levdr1lp, I have just unblocked Vjmlhds, who was of course blocked for the horrible things they said on your talk page. In my opinion they expressed remorse appropriately, as much as they could give--apparently--given y'all's previous (and off-wiki) history. As a preface to my next statement, please believe me when I say that I do not assign any blame to you for this exchange, far from it: I asked the other editor to keep off-wiki stuff off-wiki, and I hope you'll do the same. Again, I'm not saying you've been allowing such stuff to seep in here, I don't know that--I'm just saying. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: I just don't want this type of disruption and harassment to continue. Thanks for checking in. Levdr1lp / talk 04:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand. As the unblocking admin, I have a certain responsibility to make sure that you won't get harassed by this editor anymore, but I also have to accept their good faith. Please do not hesitate to let me know if the editor resumes this kind of behavior--but I trust, and hope, that it won't happen again. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
@Drmies: Will do. And thanks again. Levdr1lp / talk 04:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on User:Vjmlhds[edit]

My hope is that Drmies, Cyphoidbomb, or some other administrator will be able to use this post as a reference moving forward.

@Vjmlhds: I simply will not tolerate continued interference every time we have a content dispute, particularly when you ignore discussions involving other editors. Case in point: the {{Sandusky Radio}} template. Without discussion, you moved the template to another name. When that move was partially undone by another editor, you reverted his edit. When I reverted your move and asked that you formally open a move request per WP:REQMOVE, only then did you open a discussion on the talk page at Template_talk:Sandusky_Radio#Request_move. Three editors besides myself weighed in, two of which opposed your move and one called your desired title "ambiguous". When it became clear that not one editor supported your desired move target, you withdrew the request. One month later, you opened a second move request at Template_talk:Sandusky_Radio#Request_move which you also withdrew. Despite this clear lack of consensus from multiple editors to change the name of the template, you have changed the visible title field of the template at least four times since last November 2014.[3][4][5][6] Let's also not overlook that you have repeatedly ignored the result to merge at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Really_Big_Show at least four times since February 2012.[7][8][9][10]

Similarly, it is difficult to take you at your word when we -- the two of us -- reach an agreement on content and you later change that content when you think I'm not watching. Examples include Talk:WKNR#Branding and Talk:WKNR#Lead, followed by your most recent reverts there [11][12][13][14]; as well as Talk:WMMS#FM flagship vs. FM home, Talk:WMMS#Format/logo, Talk:WMMS/Archive_2#99X_and_Nikki_Sixx, Talk:WMMS/Archive_2#Programming, and Talk:WMMS/Archive_2#WMMS/Tribe, followed by your most recent reverts there.[15][16][17][18]

When I try to undo these disruptive edits, you claim I'm out on some "witch hunt" to get you, or that I'm trying to "pick a fight", or that I'm acting like some sort of "troll". The fact I speculated on the identity of an anonymous blogger some 3 years ago on a different site is irrelevant to the name/target of the {{Sandusky Radio}} template, merging The Really Big Show, the lead of WKNR, or the format of WMMS. The fact I opened a SPI case on you nearly a year ago (for which you were cleared of wrong doing) is irrelevant. The fact you suspect I am behind some Twitter account (I am not) is irrelevant. What *is* relevant is that multiple editors have disagreed with you on separate occasions and you have repeatedly ignored them. What *is* relevant is that we -- you and I -- often discuss content disputes at length on article talk pages, reach an agreement, and then a few months later you go back on your word just because I've been absent for a while. Whatever issues you have with me, they certainly do not justify your repeated and deliberate reverts to content agreed upon by clear consensus, nor do your actions demonstrate good faith when you renege on our agreements because of some old grudge. If you have an issue with me, then address it in the proper channels. Don't take content hostage. Don't use me as an excuse to shoehorn in your views on this site.

In this context, please reconsider the following carefully:

  1. Yes, I did speculate some 3 years ago at the RadioDiscussions.com (former Radio-Info.com) boards that the anonymous author of the blog "Ohio Media Watch" is a certain Northeast Ohio broadcaster. The blog was being used increasingly as a reference for Wikipedia content (my concern was WP:CONFLICT, and sure enough, a clear consensus of editors agreed with me at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_135#Ohio_Media_Watch -- an anonymous blog with no apparent editorial oversight does not qualify as a reliable source on Wikipedia per WP:SELFPUBLISH). Of course, this has already been discussed at length at on this very talk page at User_talk:Levdr1lp#Ohio_Media_Watch. After an admin suggested that "off-wiki" matters weren't particularly relevant here, I dropped the issue.
  2. Regarding the SPI case, yes, I did open a case on you over a year ago in October 2014. My reasoning was described by other editors as "justified", "strong", and "quite plausible". After you were cleared of wrong doing, I apologized twice for any undue stress you may have gone through during the case -- first in late October 2014, and again in February 2015.
  3. No, I am not the Twitter user @OhioMediaDaily.

It would appear you have two choices: either assume good faith on my part and drop these issues once and for all; or, if you have any suspicions that my actions somehow violate this site's policies and/or guidelines, then take those suspicions to the appropriate noticeboards, seek administrator assistance, etc. At the very least, please stop using your grudge against me as an excuse to disrupt this site. Thank you. Levdr1lp / talk 02:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference between letting you have your way to shut you up, and agreeing with you. I don't agree with you about anything, it's just that communicating with you is like banging my head into a brick wall...it feels so good when I stop. And I repeat what I said before...the only one who seems to ever take issue with any of the changes I make to these particular pages is you. Therefore, am I to believe I am always wrong and you are always right? Or am I to believe that you just seem to want to pick fights because you have a holier-than-thou attitude regarding Wikipedia, and you act as though I am beneath you somehow. I'd have less animosity towards you if you were to apologize to OMW for doing to him what I assume you'd be very upset about if someone would try to do with you here (i.e. out you...not cool). You talk about assuming good faith with you...you certainly didn't do that with me with the SPI. I keep bringing it up because I told you that wasn't me, but instead of assuming good faith and taking me at my word, you opened an SPI...you don't accuse people of stuff unless you can proof positive back it up. And third, you aren't NEOMD...fine, but the stunt he pulled was right out of your playbook, and I'm not the only one that thought that (I know people outside of Wiki that know all about you). And I'll make the same offer I made you earlier....you let my versions of the articles in question stand for 2 weeks, and see if anyone else objects. If so, I'll know it's a me problem...if not, than I'll know it's a you problem. I say witch hunt because when X goes after Y for the same stuff over and over again, who's to say X is always right? This site ain't your personal playground, so quit acting like it is. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@Vjmlhds: I'm not going to bargain for things you've already agreed to, and I'm not going to apologize yet again for something I've already apologized for. And I will continue, as I have for some 3 years, as well as per Drmies' suggestion, to keep off-site things off-site. Levdr1lp / talk 03:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The words "I agree" never once came out of my mouth (or off my fingers via the keyboard) in any of the disputes we had...You just like fighting wars of attrition until people give in to you...that's not making agreements, that's just wearing people out. You call it "agreements" I call it giving in. Constantly giving in is why you have developed the attitude you have - you think if you just keep pushing and pushing and pushing, that you'll eventually get what you want because they'll just want you to go away. And I do find it somewhat amusing that when I make certain changes, they're fine and dandy with 99.9 percent of the rest of the Wiki World, but when you see them after crawling out from under your rock, you go right in to hissy fit mode (when you blank your user page because someone won't back down from you, it's a hissy fit). Vjmlhds (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@Vjmlhds: Actually, I've taken two extended breaks from editing in the last few months (I'm still trying to have a life outside of this site). After returning to update the Premium Choice online stream feeds yesterday, I found that you had basically gone back on your word during my absence -- namely at WMMS and WKNR. I found your blatant disregard for established consensus at {{Sandusky Radio}} and The Really Big Show even more troubling. So I tried to undo what I perceived to be disruptive edits on your part. You then threatened to "break my fingers" and "bury a hatchet in my skull". After being blocked yet again, naturally you pleaded: "I'll never do it again!" So then a couple forgiving admins let you go. I tried to reach out to you, and you quickly threw it right back in my face. Let's be clear: I blanked my user and talk pages yesterday out of sheer frustration (not unlike your "retirement" not so long ago). I was also just completely astounded at your apparent lack of self awareness. I don't immediately agree to a point in a discussion and that means I'm doing something wrong? Am I supposed to think being block repeatedly for edit-warring is more or less constructive? I did happen to notice another ANI for edit-warring was recently filed against you -- seems like you're "pushing" a fair amount yourself. Levdr1lp / talk 04:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Side note[edit]

@Vjmlhds: In the interest of mending fences (somewhat), as a show of good faith (on my part), and since you specifically requested it, I will apologize here and now for speculating on the identity of the anonymous blogger known as "Ohio Media Watch" (OMW) some 3 years ago at the old RadioDiscussions.com boards (then known as Radio-Info.com). Please note that I have no connection whatsoever to the Twitter user @OhioMediaDaily (NEOMD); I don't know who is behind that account nor do I care. I cannot take responsibility for something out of my control. And just consider for a moment what I already know to be true -- that there is actually some other unknown individual out there behind that NEOMD Twitter account. All I can say is that if I were working in the local broadcast industry (and I'm not), I might take issue with some of OMW's opinions. He/she has a fairly large online following, many who work in broadcasting. If OMW says something unflattering about broadcaster X, then probably most (if not nearly all) of broadcaster X's colleagues and industry peers may read that unflattering view. Frankly I'm surprised there hasn't been more of a demand to know who exactly OMW is, or that there hasn't been additional backlash. But I've long since let that go. So to review, I apologize for speculating 3 years ago. I haven't since, nor will I in the future. And I have no connection to the Twitter user @OhioMediaDaily. Levdr1lp / talk 05:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for apologizing about OMW. You're not NEOMD, and I'll accept that as fact - issue dropped. And I'm sorry, but I'm just not built to be like The Borg - assimilation to hive mind is something that I refuse to be a part of. Somebody does something that isn't up to snuff, I'm gonna call them out on it. People get their buttons pushed enough, they lash out. The hatchet in the skull and breaking fingers stuff was more about letting off steam than me actually wanting to cause physical harm (you ain't worth going to jail dude...sorry). Just because you're on Wikipedia, it doesn't mean you have to check you individuality at the door. If you want to become a Wikiborg, have fun...not my bag. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@Vjmlhds: There are only four lights, my friend. Levdr1lp / talk 23:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Not getting the 4 lights reference (I'll kick myself it's is a borg joke). Vjmlhds (talk) 01:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)~
@Vjmlhds: Chain of Command (Star Trek: The Next Generation). Levdr1lp / talk 01:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
@Vjmlhds: I've removed the transgender joke. Please do not post that type of material on my talk page. Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 02:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The Really Big Show[edit]

I looked at that history, and the AfD. It is true that consensus can change, and three years is long enough for something to change. What that means is that I can't really put my administrative foot down to enforce that AfD--the user presents something of an argument, though it's a very meager one, which consensus could be reached on on the talk page. Anyway, what I was going to say, it may have to be done with another AfD. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: I have repeatedly encouraged Vjmlhds to request a split if he thinks it's necessary. I have no problem with another AfD whatsoever. Levdr1lp / talk 03:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
If he reverts your redirect, you'll know what to do. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@Drmies: Just so I'm clear, you're saying I should open a proposed split myself? Will do if that's the case. Levdr1lp / talk 03:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
No, if the redirect is reverted, and thus essentially the article is recreated again, take it to AfD; a "delete/merge" would established a new consensus that will solidify the redirect. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@Drmies: Ah, got it. Will do. Levdr1lp / talk 03:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Mea Culpa[edit]

I would like to formally apologize to you for my outrageous behavior a while back. Please indulge me while I explain myself. Shortly after North East Ohio Media Daily outed Ohio Media Watch, I got word (via knowing people who know people) that OMW decided to discontinue his blog (about a week later, he announced this himself). So seeing as I thought you were NEOMD, and figuring NEOMD drove OMW away by outing him, basically I had blood coming out of my eyes and (to quote Donald Trump) my whatevers, so I was gonna make you pay the only way I knew how to, through the only vehicle by which I could - that being Wikipedia. Do I know for sure what drove OMW away - no...he has his own life, and probably has his own reasons. But I was wrong in pinning it all on you, because you aren't NEOMD. I know this for a fact because he comes up with wild, outlandish BS, and you are (from dealing with you here) a stickler for verifiable info. If I'm gonna take people to task when I think they're not on the up and up, I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't call myself out when I step in it. I'm an idiot for doing what I did, and I'm sorry. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Apology accepted. Levdr1lp / talk 05:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Award 4 U (October 2015)[edit]

file:Erasmus(buste).jpg I didn't know if you were aware of this or not, but I thought it was kinda cool when I found out. Vjmlhds (talk) 01:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S. This is the second award we have shared - the first being a barnstar that was split in half.

@Vjmlhds: Please do not give me awards like this. I was not awarded this Erasmus award, the Wikipedia community as a whole was. Moreover, it's not your place to bestow this award on me or anyone else. If you are going to present me with an award, present it on your own behalf, not in the name of some other group/organization/individual. If you wish to give me a barnstar, that's fine as they are created by consensus. Otherwise, please stop w/ the awards. Thank you. Levdr1lp / talk 05:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't give you anything - all I did was bring up the fact that WE (as a collective entity) won the award. It's like a team that wins the Super Bowl, it's a TEAM win, but all the individual members can (rightfully) call themselves Super Bowl champions. This isn't me ME giving YOU an award, just more along the lines of bringing to your attention "Hey, look what somebody gave US." Vjmlhds (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@Vjmlhds: Please just refrain from posting award messages on my talk, whether from you or not (barnstars excluded). If you're not sure in the future, just don't post it and you're good. Please respect my request. Levdr1lp / talk 14:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
OK - your wish is my command, but as I said, my intent was merely to tell you about a collective award that we had a part in. User:Vjmlhds (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@Vjmlhds: It should be thoroughly clear by now that I have no interest in your awards or award-related posts (barnstars aside). I sincerely hope this is the last time we have to discuss this matter. Levdr1lp / talk 14:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

was being specific[edit]

I was being specific. I apologized if I wasn't accurate on your end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrestwoodRocks (talkcontribs) 04:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Bob & Tom[edit]

For what it's worth, WGAR doesn't even list Bob & Tom on it's schedule anymore, and lists Kat Jackson in her normal evening spot. I thought there was something to B&T on GAR, and I got burned (they were listing B&T for reason...right?). But whatever, they're gone now, and I only bring it up because we had a little back and forth over it last week. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: There was no back-and-forth as far as I'm concerned. I stated the obvious -- that WGAR-FM was *not* airing The Bob & Tom Show on-air/online -- and reverted your edits accordingly. Not surprisingly, you restored the disputed content (and with Twinkle, no less). It was only after I messaged you on your talk page that you seemed to get the point and drop the issue. Levdr1lp / talk 06:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Auld Lang Syne (2016)[edit]

Glass of champagne.jpg Right back at you Levdr. Have a glass of bubbly on me.
Happy New Year!
Vjmlhds (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Cleveland Indians history[edit]

Hello Levdr1lp (talk), I am writing this message on your user talk page in hopes of starting a discussing in reaching consensus regarding the the Cleveland Indians' history. It is my opinion (supported by multiple sources) that the Indians' history dates back to 1901. My sources are MLB.com (seen here, here and here), and Baseball-Reference.com (seen here). Both MLB.com and Baseball-Reference.com state that the Indians' history is as follows:

• Cleveland Blues (1901)
• Cleveland Bronchos (1902)
• Cleveland Naps (1903–1914)
• Cleveland Indians (1915–present)

There is no evidence to suggest that the Indians were ever at one point in history known as the Grand Rapids Rustlers [a team that may or may not have been a member of the Western League (WL)]. Also, the WL [the forerunner of today's American League (AL)] was a minor league when it was in operation (this has been confirmed by Major League Baseball (MLB)'s official historian, John Thorn, an article discussing the topic is seen at Thorn's blog, OurGame.MLBlogs.com: [19]). I am not looking to engage in an edit-war with you over this; I am simply trying to start a discussion in hopes of reaching consensus with you and other knowledgeable editors on this topic. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Charlesaaronthompson: You are welcome to open a discussion at Template Talk:Cleveland Indians. Levdr1lp / talk 00:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@Levdr1lp: I just started a discussion at that template's talk page. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible sock returning after absence[edit]

(Template removed)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Doworks000/Archive. I suspect this sock has returned to the Superman article. Too many apparent similarities across users in that page's edit history: in general, stubborn refusal to use edit summaries; creating an account as far back as 2008 and only becoming active years later; focus on comic book content; changing username; mutual contact among that page's editors; etc. Specifically, this sock and I had a minor content dispute back in April 2013 at the Superman article; after noting my renewed suspicions in an edit summary a couple days ago, I get a random post about Metropolis (Clark Kent/Superman's adult home) on my Commons talk page at User_talk:Levdr1lp#Metropolis. The sender was a newly registered user who is absent from the English Wikipedia. Random coincidence? Please advise. Levdr1lp / talk 03:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm no longer seeking help, so I've removed the {{Admin help}} template. I've opened a case at SPI. Levdr1lp / talk 10:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Lydia Canaan[edit]

Hey, I was wondering if you'd mind reviewing and rating the Lydia Canaan article that I've nominated for GA rating? Thanks! WikiEditorial101 (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Restored response[edit]

DangerousJXD- since you removed my comment (& misused the {{archive top}}/{{archive bottom}} templates as you clearly are not "uninvolved"), I've restored it on my talk page here:

The case was closed for insufficient evidence, not because I was "wrong". Only a CheckUser can determine conclusively if there was actually any sock-puppetry; unfortunately, the reviewing clerk did not think there was enough behavioral evidence to justify a CU at this time (perhaps because, as one admin said, the older accounts have likely gone "stale"). Bear in mind this was not a new case, but an old one reopened: multiple socks were uncovered for editing the same way at the same article as you. If you think that amounts to "wildly throwing around false accusations", well then I guess that's your right to think so. I simply disagree with your view. Levdr1lp / talk 00:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Don't you understand the meaning of "this matter is over, stop interacting with me"? This is the last comment of mine talking about your little games and I suggest you drop it as well. By the way, I used the archive template as a way of getting you to go away. Clearly that didn't work as you seem intent on dragging this out. —DangerousJXD (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
DangerousJXD- No, I've pretty much said all intend to. I simply did not appreciate having my response removed from your talk page, and then having that discussion marked as "closed" (which isn't even necessary- it's your own talk page, but whatever). If you're going to try to pass that discussion off as having been closed by some third party without my last response, well then I'm going to make sure my response is represented somewhere, even if it that means on my own talk page. Levdr1lp / talk 10:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Be advised that you may not corner a user on their own talk page and badger them. A user is completely within their right to remove any content from their own talk page, and you have no right to complain about them doing so. Jehochman Talk 15:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Jehochman- Respectfully, I did not corner this user. I did not badger this user. I did not complain that this user removed my comment from his talk page. I notified him that I opened a case involving him at SPI. During that case, this user repeatedly tried to engage me on his talk page.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] I only responded to him twice while the case remained open: first, I directed him to the case page; and second, I linked to information for accused parties. After the case was closed, I apologized for any inconvenience he may have dealt with. He then accused me of "wildly throwing around false accusations", so I responded to that claim. This user then removed my comment (which is obviously his right to do so), but he also added archive templates and "closed" the discussion (which seems odd given the context, and inappropriate in that the {{archive top}}/{{archive bottom}} templates explicitly state that only uninvolved editors or admins may close such a discussion... but whatever, it's his talk page and he can do what he wants). After he removed my comment & "closed" the discussion, I restored my own comment to my own talk page. He then removed the "closed" discussion from his talk page completely (and literally suggested in the edit summary that I move it to my talk page, which I did). That's it. Levdr1lp / talk 16:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Template:Green Bay Packers[edit]

Hi Levdr1lp! I saw your edits on Template:Green Bay Packers. I think you were right about it being a little too much with the dates added to the league affiliations. I still think it is relevant and helpful though to have the dates so I wanted to see if there was a way too shorten the section up while still adding the years. I came up with this idea. I figured that there was no reason to say National Football League, National Football Conference and North Division since the plain text already says League:, Conference: and Division:, so I simply piped the links to the shorter acronyms. I also replaced present with since so it says (Since 1921), etc. I know you mentioned that the previous way, without the years, was consistent with the other templates, but if this works out well than maybe we can update those and create a new standard! Let me know what you think! Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Gonzo fan2007- Personally, I prefer the full names for the league, conference, & division links. As for the dates, I think simpler is better; noting the league years is helpful for teams which either participated in a separate league (AFL, AAFC, etc.) or were unaffiliated (the Packers) prior to joining the NFL. Conference & division names, as well as their organization/structure, have changed too many times to be effectively conveyed in these templates (moving from one division/conference within the NFL to another division/conference within the NFL is not nearly as important as when a team ended its affiliation with a previous league & began a new affiliation w/ the NFL- again, my personal view). Of course, it's probably best to raise these issues at the NFL WikiProject. My guess is that there might not be much desire to change something which is already relatively uniform across the current NFL team templates. Lately it seems more emphasis has been placed on simply standardizing these templates, not how exactly. Levdr1lp / talk 01:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27[edit]

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.

1991 in radio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Morrison
WZZT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to 2000s

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

WOW![edit]

file:Glass of champagne.jpg For an occasion like this, let's bust out the expensive stuff! Cheers to you! Vjmlhds (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC) ]]

Vjmlhds- I'm sure you appreciated Kevin Love's postgame shirt! Levdr1lp / talk 05:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
(to quote the shirt's subject) OH HELL, YEAH! Vjmlhds (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Changes Reversed on WFHM-FM page[edit]

This is concerning the changes that were not accepted to the WFHM-FM page. I am the Graphic Designer/Webmaster for this station and have been since they went live in 2001. Concerning the changes that I made to the Wikipedia page, the change to the "first air date" seemed like an obvious update, as the "source" for this information is already on the Wikipedia page. Under the heading 2001 "frequency swap", it states that "As part of this complex exchange, Radio Seaway sold WCLV to Salem Communications; both companies retained their respective on- and off-air staff. Salem then changed the WCLV callsign to WHK-FM; changed the station's format to Contemporary Christian music (CCM);[6] and rebranded the station 95.5 The Fish. On August 16, 2001, Salem changed the station's callsign to WFHM-FM." This clearly states that WFHM-FM started in 2001, not 1961, so I was simply trying to update the contradictory information on this page. I did not think I would need to source something that was already been used as fact on the page - I was just trying to make the information consistent. WFHM-FM did not start in 1961, as wrongly stated in the in first paragraph in the History section, the signal 95.5 FM did. The signal and the call letters are two separate entities, as a signal can and often does have different call letters and formats throughout its history. If this Wikipedia page was for 95.5 FM (the signal) stating that it started in 1961, it would be completely accurate. But, this is a page for WFHM-FM (the call letter/format), an entity that did not event exist until 2001. Prior to 2001 you will find no reference to WFHM-FM, as it was not ibn existentence.

As far as the tagline update, I do not believe that there is any source online to reference, but I thought I would update it in order to have the most recent information. My real reason to even make any updates to this page was that I simply wanted to update the logo, as our GM asked me to update the logo on Wikipedia. I was unable to update the logo, as it said I needed to have 10 edits before uploading an image. How can I get the logo updated? You can look on the website<ref>http://www.955thefish.com</ref> or the Facebook page<ref>https://www.facebook.com/955thefish</ref> to see that the logo has clearly changed. Maybe you can update logo?

Rhyno72 (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Rhyno72- The "first air date" of 2001 may have seem obvious to you, but you're simply wrong; the format (Christian contemporary) and brand ("The Fish") launched in 2001, not the station itself. WFHM-FM -- the radio station licensed to Cleveland, Ohio, which broadcasts at 95.5 MHz -- first launched in the early 1960s. It hasn't always identified itself as "WFHM-FM", but it is the same station nonetheless. Note the former call signs listed in the infobox on the top right side of the article: WDGO from 1960 to 1962, WCLV from 1962 to 2001, and WHK in 2001. This is directly based on the FCC online database which clearly lists former call signs for the same station which currently identifies as "WFHM-FM". Broadcasting & Cable yearbooks dating back to 1964 confirm the station's first air date (first noted in 1964; most recently noted in 2009). Please bear in mind that a call sign is a means of identifying at station, not the station itself, and station call signs (as well as formats and brands, owners and staff, facilities, etc.) frequently change. The "entity" your refer to may have begun in 2001, but the station it is associated with did not. I suggest you review the contents of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations main page, as well as its talk page archive which dates back to 2005: you will find there is long-standing consensus regarding this and many other issues. Levdr1lp / talk 08:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Ted Stepien[edit]

@Levdr1lp: There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON why the wikilink for Ted Stepien should be piped at Template:Cleveland Cavaliers. Please STOP reverting my edits or I WILL report you for edit-warring. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 00:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Charlesaaronthompson- Excuse me? Pot, meet kettle. You have attempted to force through a change unilaterally without any consensus. You ignored a related discussion on the template's talk page. Levdr1lp / talk 00:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Charlesaaronthompson- By the way, you don't need to {{ping}} me on my talk page. I'm notified regardless. Also, please refrain from shouting. Levdr1lp / talk 00:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Sports curse[edit]

The reason I added "largely recognized" to the lede, is because there were some references that credited Stipe winning the UFC Title as the end of the curse, with the majority recognizing it when the Cavs won the NBA Title.

Not gonna change it, because it's not that big of a deal, but I just wanted to explain my reasoning.

Vjmlhds (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Vjmlhds- Miocic did indeed receive coverage for winning the UFC Heavyweight title, and some of that coverage did claim his title ended Cleveland's championship drought. But the vast majority of coverage over the years has dealt with the failure of Cleveland's three major professional sports teams (Browns, Cavs, & Indians) to win a championship since 1964. Not minor league teams. Not sports outside of those represented by the "Big 4" leagues (MLB, NBA, NFL, & NHL). Not individuals or amateurs. I also think Miocic -- who wasn't playing on behalf of Cleveland, and who technically isn't even from Cleveland (he's from Euclid) -- was at least partly piggybacking off the increased awareness of Cleveland's title drought, both because of the 2016 Cavs playoff run and the premiere of ESPN's Believeland, which just happened to air the same night as UFC 198. It makes for a catchy headline, and in the click-driven digital age, I think media outlets aren't exactly eager to let facts get in the way of a seemingly more compelling story. Moreover, the Cleveland Crunch won three titles in the 1990s, and the Lake Erie Monsters won the 2016 Calder Cup roughly one week before the Cavs won the 2016 NBA Finals. If we're going to expand the list of what counts as a drought-ending championship (which seems inappropriate given the overall coverage), then the Crunch and Monsters each have at least as strong a claim as Miocic. Levdr1lp / talk 04:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed about the curse encompassing the "Big 4". Kinda picking nits about the Euclid/Cleveland thing though (Miocic went to CSU, and Euclid is like 10 minutes away from downtown on the shoreway...close enough for piece work). Never said the the Calder Cup was the drought ender either. People did kinda fall over themselves when Stipe won the title on the same night Believeland aired. Though to be completely honest, UFC is the "major leagues" of MMA, while the AHL is a level below hockey's major league (NHL), so the UFC World Heavyweight Championship does have more gravitas than the Calder Cup (though I am certainly not gonna throw it back - I'll take Cleveland's current hardware collection everyday of the week and twice on Sunday). Vjmlhds (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Vjmlhds- I think you're confusing a few points. There is an entire article devoted to the "Big 4" (major) professional sports leagues, and UFC is not among them – rightly so given the overall coverage. More importantly, UFC 198 was a match between Stipe Miocic and Fabrício Werdum, not Cleveland (Euclid) and Los Angeles/Brazil. Unlike the Monsters and Crunch, Miocic was not fighting on Cleveland's behalf and/or in the city's name. MMA is an individual sport, and like boxing before it, professional fighters typically compete for themselves. This was not Muhammad Ali representing USA in the 1960 Olympics; it was Miocic fighting for Miocic. After the win, Miocic reached out to his hometown (sort of), and some media outlets latched onto the drought angle, particularly given the airing of Believeland that same night and the Cavs' ongoing playoff run. It was seemingly heartfelt (& possibly self-promotional) by Miocic, somewhat uninformed (& possibly promotional) reporting by the media, and definitely promotional for the purposes of Wikipedia. All sources need to be taken into account and weighed appropriately. The "Big 4" and Cleveland (Euclid) issues aside, I just don't see how the UFC is any more relevant to the drought/curse than the Crunch or Monsters (not that it really matters anyway since the curse article explictly deals primarily with the "major" Cleveland teams). Levdr1lp / talk 01:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Again...not arguing with you. Curse = Big 4, period. I guess what I was trying to say is that because UFC is as big as it is, that some credited Stipe with breaking the curse (nowhere does anyone say that the Monsters did it). And UFC is big - ESPN covers it heavily, cards air periodically on FOX, and FS1 airs a lot of cards. Also get ready for all the "hometown boy defends his title" stuff that will come with UFC 203. Once again, please don't get me wrong...the Cavs broke the curse, but UFC isn't small potatoes. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
You keep overlooking the Cleveland Crunch. That and the fact Miocic did not play for Cleveland and/or in the city's name. Small potatoes, big potatoes, fried potatoes- however "major" the UFC is, it's simply not relevant to the Cleveland title drought because Cleveland itself is not represented in UFC contests. We can discuss how and whether to include sports outside of the "Big 4", or minor league teams affiliated with the "Big 4", but an individual fighting on his own behalf really shouldn't even be up for debate. I don't necessarily have an issue with simply noting how Miocic's title was (mis)characterized by some media outlets (& Miocic himself) as a title for his hometown, or that it was (mis)characterized as having ended Cleveland's title drought. But let's not kid ourselves- this was not a Cleveland title (and even if it were, *and* if we were to expand what qualifies as a curse/drought-ending title, Miocic couldn't have ended the curse/drought because the Crunch had already beat him to it). Levdr1lp / talk 03:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The Stipe references are from national sources (Fox Sports, CBS), as well as the Vancouver Sun newspaper - these weren't "guy in his basement doing a blog" sites. So when I added the "largely recognized" qualifier, it was because while the Cavs got most most the credit for breaking the curse (and rightly so), some reputable sources did credit Stipe, thus my qualifier was an acknowledgement to that fact. And the reason Stipe got so much publicity is because UFC is a major sports entity (they just got sold for $4 Billion). Again - agree that the Cavs broke the streak, and no issues about the revert. Just trying to point out that UFC is not equivalent to the NPSL or the AHL - somebody accomplishes something in UFC, it gets a good chunk of coverage. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Vjmlhds- Ok, let's try this again. Point 1. The UFC is not one of the "Big 4" leagues, right? So either we limit the curse/drought to the "Big 4", or we open it up to other sports. Say we open it up. Where's the cutoff? If you're going to include pro sports outside the "Big 4", then there's a much stronger case to include Miocic, the Crunch, & the Monsters -- all 3 -- rather than Miocic alone. Much stronger. Think about how much coverage there is on the "Big 4". Now compare that to the difference you're trying to draw between the UFC and the NPSL & AHL. Better yet, compare coverage of the "Big 4" to coverage equating the "Big 4" to the UFC. It's not even close. The UFC was sold for $4 billion? Ok. You want to use that stat to equate the UFC to the "Big 4"? That's original research. Point 2 (which you failed to address in your last response). Stipe Miocic was not fighting for Cleveland. Not on the city's behalf. Not in the city's name. National source or not, just because a source claims Miocic ended Cleveland's drought doesn't make it true. Levdr1lp / talk 23:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree on everything you said regarding the Big 4. All I was trying to do was explain why some people gave credit to Stipe, because in the real world at large, UFC is a big thing, and the NPSL and AHL are barely a blip. And regarding point 2, when it gets down to it, MMA isn't a team sport, so Stipe doesn't count in breaking the curse - though YOU try telling him that to his face ;) Vjmlhds (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Vjmlhds- So you're still going with original research for Point 1? Got it. But you still have not addressed Point 2: regardless of how certain media outlets have characterized it, Stipe Miocic was not fighting on behalf of Cleveland or in the city's name. Levdr1lp / talk 02:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Notice throughout this whole thing I never once reverted the article back. I explained why I did what I did to start with, and I'm not arguing with your logic as to why you reverted it. You won that one. Also agree that Stipe wasn't the curse stopper either. No issues at all on my end. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Superman[edit]

Will do, with heavy heart. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Tenebrae- Thanks for the heads up. Wish it didn't have to come to this. Levdr1lp / talk 16:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Tenebrae- :Levdr1lp- with the current semi civil discussions, yeah I'm watching and reading, he still has that attitude of he is the only one who does anything to the article and he is right other editors are wrong. I personally saw nothing wrong with how it was laid out or set up to begin with.Dont get me wrong he has made some fine changes but I feel this is just for himself and his ego. He seems a little to obsessed with it. Might just be me but I don't ever see this ending, because he just doesn't seem to get the fact it's not just his article.My other issue is after looking at his last 500 edits Superman seems to be the only article he is doing anything to and that worry's me a little. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm hoping that as long as responsible veteran editors keep watch over the article that things will work out. At least I hope so. Watchfulness is key. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
WarMachineWildThing, Tenebrae- Thanks for checking in, WarMachine. For now, the situation seems to be under control. If/when it again becomes a problem, I'm sure Tenebrae will take the appropriate steps. If we were to open a case at ANI at this point, we might just end up right back where we are now (Baron gets a warning), only having used up a lot of precious time for ourselves, other users, admins, etc. Levdr1lp / talk 23:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Tenebrae- Levdr1lp- No no I wasn't speaking of doing an ani right now,as I agree there isn't really a reason. I am truly concerned for the person behind the name, My concerns are for them. I'm sorry that I didnt make that clear. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
WarMachineWildThing- No problem. Good to know we're on the same page. Levdr1lp / talk 23:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm afraid it looks like I'll have to file an ANI about his OWNish behavior. It's not stopping after multiple warnings. We've all tried very hard and been very patient. I'll let WarMachineWildThing know as well and I'll supply a link once it's done. I guess in the meantime if you have a chance to gather examples, that would help. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Tenebrae- Will do. Levdr1lp / talk 18:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent OWN behavior despite multiple editors' warnings regarding an issue in which you participated in talk-page discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Tenebrae- I'm sorry that I haven't weighed in yet. I'm currently involved in an unrelated (but prolonged) content dispute, but I have every intention of adding my thoughts to the ANI thread on Baron (though you & WarMachineWildThing appear to have things well under control... I'm not sure I can add much more to your impressive summary of recent developments at the Superman talk page). Levdr1lp / talk 00:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
When you are freed up I do hope you are able to weigh in. I think your input would be invaluable. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Tenebrae, WarMachineWildThing- Done. Levdr1lp / talk 03:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

just saw it, I think your input was unfortunately needed as well, you listed somethings i had forgot about. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 03:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

As an involved editor, you may wish to keep close watch at Superman, since the subject of an ANI has continued to make edits despite other editors' issue with his contentious behavior. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Tenebrae- Like a hawk. Superman has long been on my watchlist. Levdr1lp / talk 21:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
He finally has gone full-blown edit-warrior. I'm going to ask for page protection, and I believe the page should be actively monitored in the meantime --Tenebrae (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Didn't you read, Tenebrae? It's all been worth it, as far as he's concerned- four steps forward, one step back. I guess it's ok to lash out and repeatedly ignore consensus, so long as you get your way in the end. (Yes, I will definitely continue to monitor the article; this type of editing should not be rewarded.) Levdr1lp / talk 22:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Superman Picture[edit]

Hi, I noticed you removed the white background from the infobox picture of Superman. Can you possibly do this to the Lois Lane infobox picture as well? Thanks for your help. DrRNC (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

DrRNC- Sure. Levdr1lp / talk 12:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
DrRC- Done. Levdr1lp / talk 06:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. DrRC (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Status update[edit]

To anyone reading this- I've been dealing with "real world" health issues the last several weeks. My free time has been limited, including the time I normally spend editing on this site. Fortunately, my issues are only temporary, and I expect to be back soon (probably by December). Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 21:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Status update: January 2017[edit]

To anyone reading this- I last posted an update in October. I had hoped to return to editing on a regular basis last month (Dec. '16), but that obviously did not happen. I now hope to return to editing w/ some regularity next month (Feb. '17). I'll try to edit if/when I can until then. Levdr1lp / talk 07:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Canton Charge logo.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Canton Charge 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. --B-bot (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)