User talk:Levdr1lp/Archive 2

January 2012 post(s) by User:Vjmlhds moved to original discussion(s)
WP:MULTI. Please see original discussion: User_talk:Vjmlhds. Levdr1 lp ( talk ) 08:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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


 * If you wish to discuss edits made to WKRK-FM, then please discuss them on that article's talk page. See Talk:WKRK-FM.   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 19:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

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


 * I'll contribute when/where I can. To start, I'll go through the roughly 2500+ combined Greater Cleveland and Northeast Ohio "What links here" wikilinks.  Jon is probably better suited to constructing the overall historical narrative.   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 01:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


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

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

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


 * Please keep this discussion on the appropriate talk page at Template talk:Cleveland Cavaliers.  Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 17:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Exactly. "ESPN Cleveland" refers to Good Karma's "entire Cleveland operation", not any one station.  Also, please discuss changes made to articles on article talk pages, not my talk page.  Future comments about articles (when discussing on an article talk page is appropriate) will be ignored.   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 02:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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


 * The station webmaster frequently rotates the image in the upper left corner of the official site's main page; the station Facebook page uses the new logo (a fan page which, in many ways, is now more important than the official site itself); and the station's page/feed on iHeartRadio uses the new logo. There's also a new Rover billboard up in at least two locations which uses the new logo (I-90/OH-2 westbound near the Cleveland foodbank, I-71 southbound between Downtown and Hopkins Airport).  Most importantly &mdash; and let's be clear on this point &mdash; there is not a single reliable source to verify that WMMS has changed its primary logo.  So to answer your question, no.  And if you're unsure how exactly to upload images, start with Uploading images.  Feel free to ask questions, though I'll probably direct you to an administrator.   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 01:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please note that I have already contacted another user, User:Calabe1992, regarding this situation. I could be wrong, but the anonymous editor you refer to ("that guy") seems to share a number of similarities with you: use of personal attacks (examples here, here, and here); general unwillingness to discuss issues on talk pages; living in the Cleveland area; etc.  If in fact you are this anonymous editor, please edit under your own account.  Thank you.   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 02:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


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


 * I'll take you on your word this time.  Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 02:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


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


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


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

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


 * The new Cleveland translator W256BT is represented in the infobox &mdash; in the "Translator(s)" field; I've also included information in the lead. As for Cleveland Radio, please remember that navboxes generally only list articles, not topics within articles (especially one already represented &mdash; in this case, WMMS).  WP:NAVBOX   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 17:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


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


 * "It should" is not an acceptable substitute for Wikipedia editing guidelines.  Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 18:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


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


 * The issue is much simpler than you're are making it out to be: 1. per WP:NAVBOX, only a subject *with its own article* can be included in a navbox, and 2. per WikiProject_Radio_Stations, "Translators should be included in the parent station's article and should not have their own page." Also, I've noticed that you have a history of being blocked for failing to follow general WP guidelines and policy; and that you're not a member of WP:WPRS (simply an indication that you are not entirely familiar with our wikiproject's editing guidelines).   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 18:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Good. Keep at it.   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 18:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


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


 * If you format your question properly per WP:TALK and WP:INDENT, I'll tell you.  Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 14:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Count the number of colons used in the comment above yours.  Add one.  Add text.  Sign.   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 14:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for formatting your question properly. This aids other editors if/when they join this conversation and provides proper context to the discussion.  Regarding your question &mdash; I don't really know, but my guess is no.  My understanding is that radio translators (FX stations) cannot simply switch to full power FM stations; their purpose is to extend the range of "real" analog stations, nothing more.  Clear Channel is using this low power translator like a "real" analog station b/c of the current lack of regulation; it's a loophole stations are taking advantage of all across the country.  This station enhances both the WMMS and iHeartRadio brands on the cheap.  I seriously doubt CC has the desire and/or the resources to invest in a seventh full-power radio station in the Cleveland market, no matter how cheap it is to plug an ipod into a transmitter.  Advertisers just aren't buying air time for the alternative demographic.  They're broke and drowning in debt.   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 14:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Thank you. That said, please follow standard talk page guidelines. WP:TALK  Future posts failing to conform will be ignored.   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 21:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


 * 1) Consider reviewing Help:Using talk pages. 2) Per talk page guidelines, please respond to messages I post on your talk page on your talk page.  Likewise, respond to messages I post on my talk page on my talk page.  3) I searched the Chronicle-Telegram archive via NewspaperARCHIVE.com and couldn't find anything to support that WMMS aired the Browns at any time from 1968 to 1984.  In regards to WBEA/107.3 FM, that station's/WEOL's program director was asked by WHK in 1971 to broadcast the Browns on WBEA instead of WEOL.  The WEOL/WBEA program director said no to Browns on WBEA on FM.  WHK said no to the Browns on WEOL on AM.  The result was no Browns in Elyria on WEOL or WBEA for the 1971 and 1972 seasons; instead, WEOL aired Bengals games.  By 1973, WHK again allowed WEOL to carry the Browns and dropped the WBEA issue.  Note that just as WEOL/WBEA did not want to air the Browns on FM in Elyria, neither did WHK want to air the Browns on FM in Cleveland (WMMS referred to in 1971 article as "WHK's FM outlet").  That's all I could find.  Since I can't find anything to verify the Browns aired on WMMS from 1968 to 1984, I've removed that content from the WMMS article.   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 03:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please follow standard talk page guidelines. If you're responding to an ongoing discussion related to WMMS content, please respond in the appropriate section on the WMMS talk page (WP:TALK).  Future posts failing to conform to standard talk page guidelines will be ignored.  Thank you.   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 05:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


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


 * The following edit has been moved to User_talk:Vjmlhds to keep that discussion on a single talk page. (WP:MULTI)  Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 16:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't wish to bicker anymore. Let's just agree to disagree on this...I'm big picture guy, you're miuntae guy, so there's always gonna be a little head-butting in our philosophies, but you're right in continuing back and forth helps no one.  On this one...I'll stand down for the sake of keeping peace.  And for the record, I'm not OMW.  OMW has no agendas.  He just reports news from Cleveland media, which quite frankly no one else bothers with anymore.   Vjmlhds 13:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

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


 * I've had doubts about the reliability of ohiomediawatch.wordpress.com for a long time now. Your latest "mancave" edits just brought the issue out into the open.  And please, try to comment on content, not editors.   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 23:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


 * Bbb23- will do. Thanks.   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 03:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest anyone following this discussion to first review Talk:WMMS. Thank you.   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 03:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Nathan Obral, I am not attacking anyone. I question the reliability of the Ohio Media Watch blog for use on Wikipedia.  Outside Wikipedia, I have been curious who exactly the site's primary contributor is, so I started a discussion at RadioDiscussions.com like other users also have.  And if you want to know who I am, you could just ask.   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 03:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


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

If we're talking journalism, then reporters are generally supposed to identify themselves; in the example you're giving, Ohio Media Watch is the reporter, not the source. Regardless, I'm not really sure that has anything to do with the topic, i.e. the reliability of Ohio Media Watch. When you (Nathan Obral) write something on a blog, you cannot use it as a reliable source on Wikipedia. When you (Nathan Obral) work for a radio station, you cannot edit that station's article and not expect someone to raise the issue of conflict-of-interest (as I did). And when an anonymous blogger is not subject to editorial oversight, that too is unreliable for the purposes of Wikipedia.  Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 04:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


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


 * That's still a pretty clear conflict of interest. At the very least you should declare any connections, professional or otherwise, to articles you edit.   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 04:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


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


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


 * Both Crain's and Scene have reporters who identify themselves and are subject to editorial oversight. But you do have a point.  I plan to start a discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard per Bbb23's suggestion, and I will certainly note that Ohio Media Watch is referenced in various local media.  That still doesn't change the fact the Ohio Media Watch blog, which you yourself contribute to, is a questionable source for the purposes of Wikipedia.   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 04:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


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


 * This is not about some "crappy persecution". This discussion is about the reliability of an amateur blog.  Obviously there are reliable blogs on the Internet.  WaitingForNextYear.com and ElevenWarriors.com are two great examples in the sports world.  In politics, there's FiveThirtyEight.com, which currently operates via NYTimes.com, but began as a separate blog authored by stats guru Nate Silver.  I'm not questioning online sources in general.  I'm questioning the reliable of your blog: it's amateur, it's largely anonymous, and there is no editorial oversight.  How were readers even supposed to know you stopped contributing?   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 04:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


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


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

Look, I'm not an expert on all Wikipedia guidelines and policy. I think the media blogs you named qualify as reliable sources because the contributors aren't anonymous and they each support ads. And I'm sure there are variations of editorial oversight depending on the case. But if it's clearly missing, as in the case of the Ohio Media Watch blog, there needs to be some other kind of attribution. There must be some kind of accountability. Otherwise the "source" is just rumor. Anonymous blogs do readers a disservice.  Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 05:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have started a discussion on the appropriate noticeboard at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.  Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 07:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


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


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

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


 * Content looks fine (at Skratch 'N Sniff). You may want to find another source for the Ryker quote.   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 21:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


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


 * No problem. And I don't plan to remove the quote.  Others might.  Just a heads up.   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 21:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


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

User space deletion
Hey, Levdr1, I noticed on recent changes that you marked a page in your userspace for deletion as G7. That's totally fine and will work without problems, but there's another tag, U1, that's specifically for deletion of userspace pages; it might help you get a faster response time. Thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I never noticed that before. I guess I never made it past the "General" section.   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 15:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

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


 * I am familiar with both the Junior and Senior Classical Leagues. In regards to content, I don't see any reason to list past officers in the National Junior Classical League article &mdash; they're just not very notable.  Now if you find reliable sources which specifically name past officers (more than just passing references), and why they are important to the general subject of NJCL, then maybe you could add such content in prose form.  Otherwise, I don't see this happening.  ...  And in the future, please discuss article content on article talk pages.   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 07:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


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


 * If there's a reliable source out there &mdash; online, print, or some other medium &mdash; I'll find it. Google news and Google books are always good places to start.  As for my signature, how exactly is it hard to read?   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 08:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Maybe there is something wrong with your screen.  Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 08:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Bright white text. Bright red text.  Black background.  There is no "dark on dark".  And yours is the first and only complaint I've received in a year.  Again, maybe it's your screen.  Maybe you're using an older operating system or web browser.   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 08:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


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

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


 * Full hex then. Thanks.   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 09:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

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


 * "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."
 * Whether you talked to someone with ties to the station is irrelevant. You still must provide a reliable source to verify your claim (Google News is always a good place to start).  "Because I contacted someone and he/she said so" is not sufficient.   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 00:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


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


 * If you plan to edit on Wikipedia with any regularity, you really ought to familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia "interface". I suggest you start with Five pillars.  Regarding the Broadcasting source, yes, I trust it more than nothing.  In the absence of another reliable source, it's the only thing to go on.  Like it or not, "I talked to someone who knows therefore I'm right" is not considered reliable on Wikipedia.   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 06:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Funny that the Talkers.com slogan just happens to be "The Bible of Talk Radio and New Talk Media". As for the rankings, I'm not sure how notable Cleveland market shows ranking in the Top 100 is (not one cracks the Top 70) when the Cleveland market itself ranks 30th in overall size.  Feels a bit non-NPOV.  That said, I guess I'm okay with including these rankings for now, provided that the actual ranking is used for each show/personality; "among the Top 100" is too vague.   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 01:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


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


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


 * "... that so few... are actually on the list, makes the couple that are kind of stick out more." You're reaching.  One would expect shows in New York, LA, and Chicago to ranker higher than those in Cleveland.  But so do shows in Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Nashville, and Raleigh &mdash; all smaller markets.  Relative to market size, Cleveland ranking below 70 isn't particularly notable.   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 02:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


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


 * No, the rankings do not say anything about the overall quality of Cleveland radio. They only say something about two Cleveland sports talk shows and one Cleveland afternoon talk show host: "2012 Heavy Hundred of Sports Talk" ranks The Really Big Show 72nd and Kiley & Booms 74th; and "2012 Heavy Hundred" ranks Mike Trivisonno 73rd.  That's it.  WP:ORIGINAL   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 03:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

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


 * The Buzzard-with-Browns-helmet logo is in use on WMMS.com, as has been the case during the Browns season the last few years, so that alone does not indicate anything has changed. As for Facebook, the new logo was still in use only weeks ago; like WMMS.com, the Buzzard-with-Browns-helmet logo is in use now because it's Browns season.  That doesn't indicate anything has changed either &mdash; the station is simply promoting itself as the radio flagship for the Browns during Browns season like it does every year.  As for Clear Channel websites, note that the new WMMS logo is used on the main pages of all other Clear Channel Cleveland station sites ("other stations" groupings), and also the Clear Channel Cleveland recruitment page.  WMMS also continues to use the new logo on the iHeartRadio online feed, a site url which is arguably more important than the official site itself.  Lastly, the station has said nothing about changing its logo.  The same basic format, a rock/talk hybrid, has remained unchanged for nearly five years.  Accordingly, WMMS has made no clear attempt to shift its image since then.  No reliable third-party publication has reported otherwise.  Nothing has changed.   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 00:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


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

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


 * Hello Piriczki. Your fair use rationale seems thorough enough to me, though I mostly add current and former station logos to station articles using the standard Non-free use rationale logo template.  You might want to consider adding the M105 logo to the WMJI article instead of Classic rock just to be sure.  There's enough room so long as you place it on the left side of the appropriate history section, and you'd have a much stronger case for the file's inclusion there.   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 05:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for inserting the URL template into some of the city articles. I knew there was a template for that but could not remember what it was called! --JonRidinger (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem.  Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 01:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

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


 * I wasn't addressing you. I referred to you so that other editors would know whose edits I reverted.  Don't even try to equate the two.   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 17:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


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


 * You have a history of failing to use reliable sources to verify your claims. I have already tried to communicate this to you – repeatedly.  At some point your contributions become disruptive.  And you didn't just "forgot to add the source" in this case.  You "forgot" to add multiple sources.  You also used an anonymous blog that you already know does not qualify as a reliable source.  You have no one to blame here but yourself.   Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 03:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


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


 * You can earn back the good faith you've lost by using reliable sources the first time you add content.  Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 03:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Thanks, but I will leave it to those more experienced with this sort of thing.  Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 03:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

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


 * None of that changes the fact you need a reliable source to verify your claims.  Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 14:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


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


 * You *still* need to add a reliable source to verify that claim.  Levdr1 lp  ( talk ) 15:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


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

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


 * Don't worry about it. Is there any way to remove this block record?   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  01:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Thanks. Unless you think there is a better option, I will contact an administrator at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  01:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


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


 * No problem.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  02:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Okay. Thank you for looking into this.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  04:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

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


 * It's not about whether I was right or wrong. It's about you removing content w/o any justification to do so (in this case, WHKW's affiliation w/ BGSU football).  Stop allowing your unsupported assumptions determine how and why you edit content.  Whether or not WHKW airs Michigan football is completely unrelated to whether or not WHKW airs Bowling Green football.  Unless you find a reliable source which supports your claim, do not alter the basic substance of content.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  02:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


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


 * This is not about a single edit. This is about a pattern of edits.  Often you make changes to articles without properly supporting your claims.  Your edit to WHKW was just the latest example.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  00:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Last May, an editor changed the wording of the lead to WP:Notability, and there was barely any discussion of that change; this would represent a considerable shift in how a core WP policy is defined, interpreted, and used. That said, the policy is what it is (for now), so I will stop referring to it the way I did in a WMMS edit summary here.  Thank you for bringing it to my attention.  As for the Indians content, please review WP:INDISCRIMINATE:
 * "...merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."
 *  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  07:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


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


 * You're conveniently ignoring that this has already been discussed at Talk:WMMS. The only other editor to weigh in on the issue said the subject of sports coverage has "a slight ring of puffery" to it.  That hardly sounds like an endorsement of your position.  As for WP:INDISCRIMINATE, what exactly don't you understand?  Just because something is true, or even verified, that doesn't mean it should be included in the article.  Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING:
 * "In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject."
 * In other words, some things about WMMS simply don't belong in the WMMS article, no matter how accurate or verifiable they are. There are limits to everything, even on Wikipedia.  The fact WMMS occasionally airs Indians games as a backup to sister WTAM is really not that important, not in terms of the overall subject.  It's trivial and excessive.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  21:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

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