User talk:Levdr1lp/Archive 3

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


 * I've decided to remove the Indians and Cavaliers note from the lead. Rover, Sixx Sense, Browns, Alan Cox: the major programming is all that's needed.  Also, it's not so much that I see things your way as I am in no mood for an edit conflict with you.  That requires communication, a little difficult given your tendency to repeatedly blank your talk page.  Levdr1lp (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


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


 * I did not remove anything from WMMS – I moved it to history. The Browns have not yet announced who will serve as the team's flagship for 2013, so as of the close of the 2012 season, there is no flagship.  I removed the WTAM Browns content from the "Current programming" section b/c it is not longer current and b/c it was completely unsourced.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  21:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


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


 * I've restored the Browns content – for now – per the Crain's article. I missed that bit about the Spring.  Thank you for bringing it to my attention.  As for the Indians, please note that WMMS is *not* a flagship and should not be labelled as such.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  00:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, pleae note that the March equinox – the start of "spring" – occurs in late March. The 2013 NFL Draft begins April 25.  There is no guarantee that WMMS/WTAM will still have rights to the Browns when the draft begins.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  00:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


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


 * If WMMS/WTAM air NFL Draft coverage, then we'll have to wait and see. If WMMS/WTAM do not air NFL draft coverage, that would be more than sufficient verification (along with Crain's article, Cleveland.com/PD, ABJ, etc.) that they are not covering the Browns for 2013.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  02:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


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


 * If WMMS/WTAM does not air the NFL Draft, that is all the verification that is necessary to know if WMMS/WTAM are, at that point, the current radio partners/flagships. The NFL Draft is the last possible thing which can air on WMMS/WTAM before the rights expire.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  03:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Yes, there is only one "first air date" for the station overall (i.e., the frequency), but the infobox field does not differentiate between first station air date and first callsign air date. "First air date" alone is ambiguous; moreover, neither Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations nor Template talk:Infobox radio station have anything definitive to say on the matter.  More often than not, especially for older stations, the first use of the station callsign is treated as the "first air date" for the station.  And nearly all of the infobox content is also found in the body of the article, so that's not really a convincing argument for excluding something.  Also, as a side, I have found many cases where a station's first broadcast occurs *after* the license is issued.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  19:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, please try not to shout. WP:CAPSLOCK  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  19:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


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


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


 * The FCC online database only goes back to the late 1970s. And many station articles include more than one "first air date" to differentiate between the first air date for the station and the first air date for the callsign currently in use.  Moreover, the current callsign is often what the general public and reliable sources associate with as "the station".   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  22:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please specify how I may access callsign data via the FCC online database prior to the late 1970s.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  22:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


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


 * That direct url does not help; the FCC website is in a state of transition, and none of the search fields in that link are working. My point is that there is no direct way to access the first air date for stations that went on air before the late 1970s via a station inquiry (like the WHKW inquiry).  Determining a first air date "to some degree" isn't very helpful, nor is it directly relevant to the discussion here.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  23:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

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


 * You added the reference. If you feel so strongly about including it, then add it in a more appropriate way – one which *directly* verifies content.  Don't blame me if you're unwilling to do the necessary work.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  04:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


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


 * You placed a single reference at the start of a very long history section, all by itself and without any text preceding it. To me, that's simply not acceptable.  I'm sure other editors would agree.  Bear in mind that I'm not stopping you from adding the source to the article per se; I'm stopping to you from arbitrarily and lazily placing a general reference in the article without going through the content to find just what exactly it verifies to place it accordingly.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  04:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

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


 * You're right... technically. The sources used in the Cleveland article use apostrophe–n–apostrophe.  But there are many sources on the subject, and exact spelling for the nickname varies (as it does for rock and roll).  Some spellings even use Capitol in place of Capital.  As I stated in my edit summary, I only made the change for readability issues; if you feel so compelled, feel free to revert my edit.  Rock and roll, rock 'n roll, rock-n-roll, rock 'n' roll, rock'n'roll, rock & roll... these are all simply alternate spellings.  The same goes for the nickname.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  06:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Commenting on a user's contributions, as I did here, does not violate WP:PERSONAL. I meant what I said.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  18:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


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


 * I haven't been "trolling" your talk page. Rather, I've been watching Qwyrxian's talk page ever since you posted this.  The irony is that had you kept the original discussion on your own talk page, I wouldn't have commented on the matter.  And I have never commented on you, Vjmlhds, the editor.  I have only ever commented on your edits and edit history.  I have provided specifics examples where you have blatantly disregarded basic editing policy and guidelines, and I'm prepared to provide more if necessary.  I'm confident that if anyone needs to worry about getting blocked, it's you.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  03:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Talk page stalkers are always welcome on my talk page, so long as they don't violate other behavioral rules. Levdr1lp's comment was acceptable, and as you can see, did not sway my opinion. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input, Qwyrxian. You and others are welcome to stalk my talk page, too.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  04:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Seeing that Qwyrxian is a top man, if he says you stayed in bounds, then I'll accept it. But that last line about "if anyone should worry about getting blocked it's you" was not really called for.  It's snarky stuff like that that pushes the envelope regarding personal attacks.  Vjmlhds 04:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Vjmlhds, I said exactly what I meant to say exactly how I meant to say it.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  04:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, so let's all go back to our respective talk pages, relax, have a cup of tea, and get back to editing constructively. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Qwyrxian, I suppose I'm to blame for inserting myself into the WWE discussion in the first place. I interact with Vjmlhds on a regular basis, often in Cleveland/Akron area media articles, so I felt compelled to share my impressions of his editing habits and interactions with other users (incidentally, I came across this gem last night while straightening up my talk page).  ...  Unless I'm directly involved, I'll stay out of future discussions on Vjmlhds.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  04:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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


 * No problem. I suppose the page does somewhat resemble a press release.  I am at the earliest stages of assembling content on the subject (Clear Channel's national programming platform), most of which is only available via press release.  I had no intention of spamming the userspace.  Sorry about the confusion.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  03:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've tried accessing the restored page but it still shows deleted. Is there usually some lag time after restoring a page?   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  03:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


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


 * No problem. Thanks.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  21:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Fine. Instead of May 1, wait until April 25.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  21:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


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


 * On second thought, no. The stations could not have made it any clearer one their respective sites online or through on-air updates.  The "triplecast" deal does not begin until May 1.  Only a single source supports the NFL Draft start date.  Sometimes it is necessary to take multiple sources into account.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  21:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


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


 * You do not know what these stations can air before the start of this agreement. Not unless you can provide a reliable source to support your claim.  All that matters here is what the sources say: that the deal does not begin until May 1.  The station sites and on-air feeds could not make it any more clear.  Same goes for the *main page* on the Browns official website.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  22:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have added a note on the shared coverage (only WKRK-FM and WKNR, no WNCX apparently) for the NFL Draft which airs prior to the start of this new broadcast arrangement.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  22:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Reviewer granted

 * Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hi Levdr1lp, I just wanted to let you know that I have granted the reviewer userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at Special:StablePages.

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

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

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

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


 * VT personalities are not sufficiently notable in this context. They change too frequently and have no real connection to the station or market.  Knowing the name of a VT personality also doesn't really help readers understand the overall subject.  As a side note, please consider basing more of your contributions on available coverage, rather than finding coverage to support your contributions.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  20:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

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


 * WP:BURDEN at Verifiability. I revert and/or modify (citation needed, etc.) .  The "any contributions" quote is only recent, and *only* with what (I thought anyway) was Qwyrxian's approval.  Maybe it was sarcasm?  I'm increasingly confused.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  22:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


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


 * From WP:BURDEN, I have been using specifically "any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed" and "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material". Again, I was under the impression that Owyrxian approved this (i.e., reverting unverified contributions by Vjmlhds who has a history of doing just that, among other questionable forms of conduct IMHO).  And Qwyrxian is an administrator like yourself.  My goal is to edit within the policies and guidelines that govern Wikipedia.  But nobody's perfect.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  23:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


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


 * I respect your role as an administrator. That's why I withdrew my block request from the noticeboard.  However, I only posted the block request because I was following the advice of Qwyrxian – another administrator.  I think that, for now at least, I will wait until you and Qwyrxian reach some kind of consensus regarding this before I adjust how I read WP:VERIFY.  Please also bear in mind that Vjmlhds is an unusual case.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  14:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

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


 * WKNR, WKRK-FM, and the Browns have all had daily opportunities in recent weeks to communicate to local radio listeners when their new partnership begins. Every time a date is specified, it's May 1st.  For whatever reason, both stations, as well as the team, have made it abundantly clear that the deal has not yet started.  Equating the airing of limited draft coverage with the start of the radio deal is original research.  Content in the lead will more than suffice until May 1st.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  05:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


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


 * You provided a source verifying that each station aired limited coverage of the draft. However, that same source did *not* say anything about draft coverage as it relates to the start date of this new broadcasting partnership.  So, yes, you were adding original research WP:OR – you drew your own conclusion w/o providing a source to "directly support" your claim.  If that's not synthesis, then I don't know what is: "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources."  I really don't see how your edits would've done anything other than confuse readers.  The leads of both articles were already quite clear; neither article required any significant changes before May 1st.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  17:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


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


 * "All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty together again." I can quote random sayings, too, but I prefer to quote relevant policies and guidelines.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  18:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


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


 * ... only you didn't just "drop it". You decided to quote gospel at the end of your post (?!), as if somehow religious teachings have anything to do with editing on Wikipedia (they don't).  Do us a favor: in the future, keep thy religion to thyself.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  23:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


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


 * By "us", I was referring to myself and you (and no one else). So, again, do *us* a favor and please refrain from spreading your personal religious views here.  And you can expect a reply any time you post on my talk page.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  02:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


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


 * No need to apologize. Just stick to content and leave religion out of this.  As for "flaws" and being "too obsessed", I treat you no differently than I treat any other editors I encounter.  What makes you different is your editing pattern: habitually adding, removing, or modifying content without providing reliable sources to verify your claims to articles I monitor daily (at least until recently), and criticizing others for pointing it out.  That said, I've noticed that over the last several days you have been adding sources to various Northeast Ohio media articles.  That's good.  Keep at it and you're far less likely to hear from me.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  03:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


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


 * As I already made clear on the WKNR page today, the team affiliation through CBD was clearly overlooked. I'm not sure it has much to do with this discussion, however, particularly as it relates to WKRK-FM, which has had no such affiliation.  You still failed to provide a reliable source to verify your claims.  In the case of the WKNR infobox, you just happened to stumble upon a completely different rationale for your edit.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  01:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


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


 * I understand what you're saying. What I'm saying, however, is that your point has nothing to do with my original concern, specifically that you were making changes to content w/o adding reliable sources to verify your claims.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  16:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Three things. First, the content on the Browns deal was already adequately sourced in the body of each article; moreover, the content was neither controversial nor likely to be challenged.  You may want to review the manual of style on that.  Secondly, if you are going to break up the flow of a discussion on my talk page, then please use the Outdent template as I have with your post above.  Lastly, could you at least consider adding a link to your talk page in your signature?   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  04:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Sounds good. Thank you for adding a link to your talk page in your signature (although you may want to move the timestamp to the end as some users have bots which automatically archive old discussions on their talk pages based on timestamp dates).   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  21:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * The WKNR official site main page logo/graphic may change at any time. Better to use a source like a press release or news story which won't change w/ time.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  19:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Thanks. I just added the "short snippet of CSS" to move the edit link back to the right.  Is there any way to restore the optional edit link for the lead section?   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  19:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


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

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


 * Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you. Occasionally it is necessary to address a specific editor in a group discussion.  I directed my question at you because you raised the issue.  Nothing is preventing other editors from weighing in on that aspect of the overall discussion.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  05:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * I still have to disagree with you. Unless you can point to a specific policy or guideline which prohibits addressing specific editors in group discussions, I have no intention of changing how I operate.  And I think you may be confusing a post which *addresses* another editor with a post which *comments* on another editor.  Only the latter violates WP:TPYES.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  14:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * You can assert your position all you want, but in the absence of any policy or guideline which clearly demonstrates how exactly I'm violating "consensus 101", I don't intend to change how I interact with other editors.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  15:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Your idea of "common sense" is your own. All editors, however, edit according to WP policy and guidelines, and unless you can tell me how I have violated either, I have no intention changing how I interact in discussions.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  16:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1. The discussion needs to remain open for seven days. 2. Closing the discussion, and performing any action based on consensus reached within that discussion, are jobs for an administrator.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  21:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


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


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

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

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


 * You were contacted because you recently contributed to the Pawlowski article. The article was nominated for deletion because, in my view, the subject fails to meet general notability guidelines as detailed in WP:BIO.  The Pawlowski discussion has nothing to do with Jeff Phelps.  Please refer to Articles for deletion/Al Pawlowski if you have any further questions.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  19:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Let's be clear: I never said you created the article. You did contribute to it, however, very recently, and that's why I invited you to participate in the discussion.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  00:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * I don't see how those articles have anything to do w/ the Pawlowski AFD.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  03:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

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


 * I was doing you a favor. I contacted Qwyrxian, an administrator who is already familiar with your situation, rather than posting at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.  Regardless, there's an even better way to avoid this type of situation in the future: stop edit-warring.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  17:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * I don't really care about the specifics here. All that matters is that another editor claimed that you were engaged in an edit-war; that's enough for me.  Even if you weren't actually edit-warring (which, given your history, is a little hard to believe), that would be all the more reason to notify an admin familiar with your situation, rather than posting at the relevant noticeboard.  Qwyrxian strikes me as very fair and someone who won't rush to judgment.  If, as you say, you did nothing wrong, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  18:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * There is nothing "snide" in stating that you have been blocked three times for edit-warring (because it's true), and that you've come close to getting blocked a fourth time (both for edit-warring and for habitually ignoring WP:VERIFY). As for the level of my involvement in this case, I nominated the article for deletion in the first place, and have been monitoring it on my watch list ever since (note that I am also participating in a separate discussion on the article's talk page).  I made the "not directly involved" comment following a professional wrestling dispute, a topic I normally don't cover.  So, please, stop splitting hairs.  I still find it hard to believe you weren't edit-warring, and there really isn't anything you can say here to make me think otherwise.  I also don't find anything convincing about Gtwfan52 dropping the issue, either, as he was the other half of that edit-war.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  19:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Have I accused you of edit-warring? No.  Is there reason to think that, given your edit history, when an editor accuses you of edit-warring that you are, in fact, edit-warring?  Yes.  And since you don't think I should share my observations from an article *on my watch list* with an administrator familiar with your situation, when is it appropriate for me to do so?  Remember: you sought my advice regarding the Jeff Phelps article.  You set this into motion.  And, yes, you repeatedly reverted Gtwfan52's edits at the same page.  And I could be wrong, but I'm sure name-calling ("snitch"), something else you have a history of, constitutes a personal attack.  You can accuse me of a lack of good-faith all you want, but the reality here is that I'm doing precisely what Qwyrxian has recommended I do: alert him if/when problems arise.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  20:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * You applied "snitch" to Gtwfan52's post. I can't think of how it would ever be appropriate to use "snitch" in reference to another editor, even in the way you have, per WP:PERSONAL.   As for when you sought my advice on the Phelps article, I *did* provide input.  I said there didn't appear to be adequate coverage from reliable, independent sources to establish notability.  You never replied.  I then performed a thorough online search in an attempt to establish Phelps' notability.  I couldn't find sufficient coverage, and I notified you about my concern.  You never replied to this *second* attempt on my part to provide input.  I then opened the AFD-- and short of unsupported assertions ("more meat-on-the-bones", etc.), you still haven't offered any substantive argument for why the article should be kept.  As for contacting Qwyrxian, I stand by what I did.  It's now up to him to determine whether or not you were edit-warring, not me.  That said, I reviewed the Phelps edit history, and all I can say is that it sure looks like edit-warring to me.  Now maybe I'm wrong, but my view doesn't really mean anything.  That's why I notified an admin familiar with the situation.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  21:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * I have no issue with Grwfan52. And name-calling is name-calling -- Comment on content, not on the contributor.  "Snitch" is a derogatory slang term, and it's not appropriate to label editors as such... at least it's not appropriate, IMHO, for use by those contributors who assume good faith.  And I am not "hell-bent on nailin [you]".  I alerted an administrator familiar with your situation that you were apparently (note I used the phrase "appears to be" on Qwyrxian's talk page) edit-warring in an I article I was watching after I had nominated the page for deletion.  I watch a lot of media-related pages from the Cleveland area, and if someone else accuses you of edit-warring on one of those pages, I am probably going to either: contact an admin; or post at the relevant noticeboard.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  22:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * "Directly" is a limitation I placed on myself, so I'll interpret how exactly I define it. When you are accused of edit-warring on a page that I have on my watch list (at your request), *and* that I recently nominated for deletion, that's "directly" enough for me.  And before you make any further accusations, you may want to review WP:AOHA.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  22:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * I think I outlined what I mean by your "situation" in the recent ANI. You have long term issues following the same policies and guidelines we are all obligated to follow.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  22:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Cheers. Sorry for the delay (real world tasks).   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  03:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


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

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


 * Yes, I believe you have established JP's notability. Already withdrew nomination b/f your message.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  04:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

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


 * His conduct is clearly inappropriate and violates WP:CIVIL. I would recommend that you keep cool, maintain civility, and try to ignore the personal attacks.  If they continue, contact me again, and I will leave a message on his talk page, and then we'll go from there.  Contact an administrator only if his edits become seriously disruptive.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  03:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * Vjmlhds- I would try to avoid telling another editor how to edit whenever possible. If an editor adds unverified content, you could always add a citation needed or refimprove template.  Ashbeck- it wouldn't hurt to better familiarize yourself w/ the site's basic conduct guidelines.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  03:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Actually, the best thing for you to do is to stop the personal attacks. Threatening to "" and labeling his posts "" and "" demonstrate a clear lack of civility on your part.  Rudeness like that is potentially disruptive and will not be tolerated.  Again, I suggest you better familiarize yourself with the site's basic behavioral guidelines, including WP:TPG and WP:EQ.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  17:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Talk pages are necessary-- they exist to help editors reach consensus, clarify positions, and settle disputes. As such, I have no reason to stop communicating with you.  I will drop *this* issue, however, if you stop using personal attacks against Vjmlhds.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  19:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Continue the personal attacks, and you will very likely get blocked. Stop the personal attacks, and this issue goes away.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  20:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

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


 * A subject's notability is not based on how well-sourced its article is but rather the amount and depth of real-world coverage available. There are plenty of notable subjects without an article, and likewise, there are plenty of subjects with articles which lack sufficient notability.  That said, I only nominated Jeff Phelps after you brought his article to my attention.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  21:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

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


 * No problem. I just think that, in general, navoxes should be limited to articles, and that position seems to be supported by the relevant guidelines.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  04:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * Done. See File:WLMB logo.png and WLMB.  In return, could you consider -- in your signature -- placing your talk page link after your user page link (and before the timestamp)?  It's pretty standard.  Thanks.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  10:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Thank you for re-ordering your signature, though I hope you are doing this for all users and just me. Put another way, I hope you're not manually inserting your talk page link, but rather using a changed format for your signature under Preferences.  Also, if you are going to use the old WLMB logo, you should remove the speedy delete tag I added.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  16:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


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

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


 * I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt -- just don't make me regret it. I have no desire to revisit the same old issues.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  18:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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


 * Media in Cleveland should be limited to outlets based out of Cleveland or the Cleveland market. Fox Sports Ohio is based out of Broadview Heights.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  18:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Relax. Sometimes I may revert or modify one of your edits, but that doesn't mean you've done anything wrong.  Your good-faith contributions do not go unnoticed.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  19:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Please keep this discussion on your talk page. WP:MULTI   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  16:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

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


 * I will continue to post on your talk page if and when I find it necessary to do so. If you are unable to follow this site's basic policies, guidelines, and conventions -- such as discussing relevant concerns w/ your fellow editors in a civil manner -- then perhaps Wikipedia isn't for you.  WP:CIR   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  01:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


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


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

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


 * Thank you for explaining. In the future, if I post on your talk page, please respond on *your* talk page.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  00:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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


 * I apologize for my word choice. I intended no ill-will.  My point was that "co-FM flagship" is overly complicated and potentially (and needlessly) confuses readers.  In other words, there was nothing wrong w/ the wording before you changed it.  I know it's a weird situation -- three stations owned by two different companies, one of which owns two FMs -- but best to keep things simple and not try to equate w/ the former nice-and-tidy Clear Channel arrangement (one AM, one FM, one owner).  That said, and no matter how it's worded, there is nothing constructive about removing mentions of the other flagship stations from each of the respective station articles, particularly given the nature of this unusual two-company trimulcast.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  21:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Again, there's no sense in comparing the CBS/Good Karma arrangement to Clear Channel's. One is way more complicated and convoluted than the other.  That said, I have no issue with the programming details as long as they're properly sourced.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  11:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

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


 * I will, so long as it remains outside of the infobox. There is nothing to indicate the station logo has changed.  Only the news graphic appears to have changed.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  13:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


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


 * I have uploaded the new "19 Action News" logo/graphic -- File:19 Action News 2013.png -- and added it to the appropriate section in the WOIO article. This will be the last time, however, I fulfill one of your upload requests.  There is plenty of information on Wikipedia to guide you through the upload process.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  23:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Let's keep things a little more formal here (I'm not your "brother", literal or otherwise). And uploading images isn't at all inconvenient for me -- I just don't think I should be doing your work for you, especially when the upload process is so plainly laid out on this site.  If the new "19 Action News" logo is so important to you, then perhaps you should take the time to learn how to upload it yourself.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  14:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


 * You're missing my point entirely. The Dawgs-by-Nature link says "Will Burge, T.J. Zuppe, Kenny Roda, and Michael Reghi were all fired".  However, that post merely links to a Crain's-Cleveland story which says *nothing* about Reghi getting fired.  In fact, the linked headline itself reads "WKNR-AM cans three of its on-air personalities" (not four).   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  13:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a sock of anybody
Now stop reverting the WOIO page right now!!!! Jacob21703 (talk) 02:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have opened a sockpuppet investigation into the above user at Sockpuppet_investigations/TheREALCableGuy.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  14:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


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


 * You are welcome to state your case at Sockpuppet_investigations/TheREALCableGuy.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  19:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Good. I see no reason to continue here, then.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  19:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


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


 * You are a confirmed sockpuppet of banned user TheREALCableGuy.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  03:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Whoa there. File:Non-Stop Buzzard Rock.jpg has a sourced caption directly relevant to both the image and to the appropriate period in the station's history.  File:WMMS-HD2, W256BT logo.png is a *logo*, and its presence in the article is used to identify WMMS-HD2 and its translator, W256BT/Cleveland -- nevermind the fact it more than likely qualifies for PD-textlogo.  I have added a sourced caption to File:WMMS big-mouth logo.png per your concern, but please realize I've uploaded dozens of radio station logos.  I am also an active member of WikiProject Radio stations.  Consensus there is that station logos -- both past and present -- are almost universally acceptable fair-use under WP:NONFREE.  As for your other fixes to the article, you yourself may wish to review WP:MOS.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  19:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


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


 * 1. The sourced captions provide critical commentary. 2. I am not suggesting that a WikiProject can override policy.  My point is that our WikiProject has determined, through years of editing and consensus, that radio station logos are considered acceptable fair use.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  19:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please directly link to the explicit policy which states that articles may only use one non-free image for identification.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  19:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Talk page discussions are not explicit policy. And I see no reason why the few non-free images with sourced critical commentary do not conform to WP:NFCC or WP:NFCC.  Rather than ram through your view, start your own discussion at non-free review.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  19:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Warn away, my fellow editor. You are the one who is unwilling to discuss the issue.  Until you can provide a direct link to explicit policy supporting your claim(s) (e.g., only 1 none-free image for identification, etc.), I have no intention of following this.  Should you feel the need to request a topic ban on me at ANI, I will request the same of you in short order.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  19:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


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


 * The issue here is "what is critical commentary?" If you don't agree that the caption is sufficient critical commentary, start a discussion at WP:NFCR.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  19:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Again, archived discussions from talk pages are not explicit policy. This is a matter of interpretation.  Feel free to open a discussion at non-free content review.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  19:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Apparently, has questioned your "wholesale removal" of non-free images.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  20:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Masem- David Helton created the buzzard, so if we're going to include only one poster, I strongly favor 1975. It's from the station's peak in the 1970s, and it captures the balance of attitude and aggressiveness first proposed by John Gorman -- a desire to replace Malrite's static "mushroom" logo.  I might be willing to let the alternative switch poster go in that scenario.  But what about the "Big Mouth" logo?  It's from the often overlooked pre-Buzzard Metromedia years.  Sourced commentary can be found in the linked revision.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  20:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, the WMMS-HD2/W256BT logo ("99X") likely qualifies, in my view, for PD-textlogo. Compare to Non-free_content_review/Archive_24.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  20:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Werieth- I am not accusing you of wholesale removal at WMMS. I am, however, noting that you seem to have a history of removing non-free images w/o discussing your concerns first.  I take your point about the overall number of non-free files, and I am more than willing to have a discussion on what to keep and what to remove.  It's just that your initial approach wasn't exactly ideal.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  20:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

WOIO-DT2 image
I've gotten complaints about you and the WOIO 19.2 logo. Just because somebody moves it to the infobox does not mean it's a edit by TheREALCableGuy. Problem is you are way too judgmental. 103.6.87.121 (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Feel fee to discuss this matter on the Cavaliers template talk page.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  15:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


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


 * I am not "imposing" anything. Content is determined by consensus on policy and guidelines, not "convention".   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  15:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


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


 * WikiProject conventions are not policy. They are specialized and somewhat-informal guidelines.  Consensus editing, however, is a policy, and you have apparently opted to disregard the established consensus at Cleveland Cavaliers... as has the anon IP who started this off a couple weeks ago.  If you had bothered to look at the edit history, you would have realized that a single Brown link was in place for months before that.  BTW, don't think I have overlooked that you violated WP:3RR.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  16:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


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


 * To reiterate, the template used a single wlink for Brown from April until two weeks ago when an anon IP added a second link. Moreover, it was other editor(s) who regularly edit the template who decided on a single wlink, not me (though I agree w/ that decision, hence the consensus).  If anyone has ownership issues here, and if anyone is trying to impose their view, it's the editor who reverted *four* times in the last 24 hrs (you).   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  16:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Why do you refuse to open a discussion on the appropriate talk page?  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  16:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Two things. First, please don't put words in my mouth.  I said you reluctantly opened a discussion at the Cleveland Cavaliers talk page after I urged you to do so -- this was only *after* you posted both this thread and a discussion on the WP:NBA talk page.  Hardly "blasting" you.  Second, I'm not particularly interested in the broader WikiProject discussion.  That said, if the NBA project's members feel so compelled, they are certainly welcome to post at the Cavaliers' template talk page.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  14:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


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


 * I never said you posted at the Cleveland Cavaliers template talk page "too late". I merely pointed out that you only *reluctantly* posted on the Cavaliers template talk page after repeated requests here and at the the NBA WikiProject talk page that you do so, and after you violated WP:3RR.  So, yes, you were putting words in my mouth.  As for the template, there is an obvious need for coordinating content across related topics through WikiProjects.  This, however, is not a substitute for discussion at specific pages where editing conflicts first occur.  If you are truly interested in building consensus in a civil way, stop with the lame excuse  and start a discussion.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  01:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

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


 * The real issue here is that Lanigan needs an article. Give me a few days to get something together.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  13:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


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


 * If you are going to include Lanigan, convert it to prose, and adds some content. The widely accepted standard for such lists in broadcast media articles is that each entry have its own article (thus demonstrating notability).  The name alone means nothing to readers unfamiliar w/ WUAB.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  13:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


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


 * My point is that if you want to include Lanigan in the Alumni section, do so in prose until the article is written. Truth be told, Lanigan's article is long overdue, especially now that he will soon be inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame.    Levdr1 lp  /  talk  14:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

WOIO
Just to be sure you're informed (though I did mention this on Vjmlhds page where you were discussing), you're at WP:3RR] on [[WOIO (as is Vjmlhds); further reverting is going to result in blocks. Please discuss the issue on the article talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. That's why I stopped reverting.  I apologize for not going to the talk page sooner.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  01:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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


 * I have no doubt Kory is out; his Twitter post is reliable enough for me. But the source you used for the new on-air talent ("Jeremiah") says nothing about his shift.  Nor does his station profile.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  17:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Yes, I thought Rye was out of line for that. As for removing your post, well, sometimes things get heated on this site.  I apologize if, in a moment of frustration, I wiped out your good will.  Please do not take it personally.  As a show of good faith, I will restore your post after this edit.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  00:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Done.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  00:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


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

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

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


 * Please stick to one talk page.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  04:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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


 * The burden of evidence lies w/ the editor who adds or modifies content. I'm sorry if you have trouble accepting this aspect of core content policy.  That said, kindly keep this discussion on a single talk page. WP:MULTI   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  18:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * Good practice on article talk pages is good practice on user talk pages. Although WP:TPG does not necessarily govern all user talk page actions, I, like most experienced users, find it best to keep discussions in a single forum.  It's also just plain common sense -- why unnecessarily break up an exchange, even on a user talk page?  As for the 1210 frequency source, had you read my initial revert's edit summary, you would know that there was already a source present in the same section verifying that claim.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  21:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * BTW, WP:TRUE is hardly an acceptable rationale to justify adding unsourced content.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  21:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Second, ever since I started editing Wikipedia, many years ago, I always understood that a message to someone goes on his own talk page. You have a thing you put on my talk page directing me to yours, and if you had not done that, I would not even know you were trying to communicate with me. See Help:Introduction to talk pages/User talk pages, which clearly states that messages to someone belong on their talk page.
 * Third, your comments about WP:TRUE are the essence of why I am becoming less and less likely to edit on Wikipedia. Such opinions are the antithesis of what I think Wikipedia ought to be, and I think I'm far from the only experienced editor who are abandoning Wikipedia for such reasons. But in any case, WP:TRUE certainly does not justify reverting a true statement for one that is demonstrably false! And that is what you did.
 * Fourth: there are templates like that are intended for such purposes. It seems to me that the appropriate response on your part would have been to use that rather than to revert. -- 74.96.68.249 (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * BRG (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You may want to log in.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  01:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for logging in.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  01:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * As for the so-called "contradiction" on the WJW timeline link, you're assuming that the timeline is exhaustive (it isn't). It's entirely possible the station moved to 1210 twice.  Just saying.  Not that that justifies changing content w/o any source whatsoever.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  01:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


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


 * It is not "clearly wrong"; the timeline is not exhaustive. It's entirely possible the station broadcast at "X" frequency and switched to 1210.  Then it switched to "Y" frequency.  Then it switched again to 1210.  You are making assumptions and making unsupported claims -- and that's my point.  Regardless, thank you again for adding the source you should have added in the first place.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  01:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


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


 * "I did not, at the time, post a source..."
 * Exactly. And that's been my point all along.  You added content w/o providing a source to verify your unsupported claim -- initially.  Don't be surprised if I or other editors revert such edits.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  01:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Prior to your source, there was nothing to indicate the WJW timeline link was wrong or incomplete. As such, and as you added an unsourced claim (initially), I was fully justified (initially) in reverting your edit.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  02:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Uh, the timeline link is from the non-profit Cleveland Broadcast Radio Archives project. The organization, and its website, is run by Mike Olszewski.  He's a professor at Kent State Univ., and has decades of experience working in Cleveland radio.  He's written not one, but two books on local Cleveland radio.  So, yeah, the link is reliable.  It's not some random user-generated BS.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  02:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Back for another go on this merry-go-round? What you're missing here is the timeline of edits -- at the time I reverted your 1240 addition, you had not yet provided a reliable source to support you claim.  You since have, which is why I did not revert the 1240 info a second time.  Got it?  Hope so.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  03:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

We've indented too far. Let's start again.
First of all, you have not answered my major points.


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

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

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

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

Unlike you I am more concerned with the consequences of Wikipedia propagating errors than with getting a source for every correction, and fixing this one error "properly" by your lights (i. e. with a source given) involved: All this just to correct a single erroneous number in the article! Had you been in my place, I suppose you would have left the error alone, rather than fix it. (After all, you reverted my edit, deliberately introducing an error, rather than permit the correct information to be displayed without a source!)
 * 1) Finding the exact Web page that had the correct information,
 * 2) Looking up the exact Wikipedia template that needed to be used (i. e. determining that, rather than  or some other template, was the appropriate template),
 * 3) Searching in a multi-page PDF for all of the parameters which need to be filled in to use correctly, and
 * 4) Entering in all those parameters correctly.

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


 * Wow, busy much? :) ... Look, I've explained my initial revert.  And explained it.  And explained it.  If you replace sourced information w/ unsourced information, don't be surprised if I or other editors revert it.  If you can't comprehend that basic concept, then perhaps Wikipedia really isn't for you.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  21:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That's why I don't do much Wikipedia editing these days. Wikipedia was fun when I started. It is not any more. But as I've repeated and repeated and repeated, I did not "replace sourced information w/ unsourced information," but replaced information which was obtained from an unreliable source with information whose source I did not feel necessary to give at the time, because it was a correction of an obviously false datum. You cannot seem to get that through your skull.
 * And you refer to you "or other editors": I have engaged in a number of exasperating edit wars with people who took exception to something I did, but have never run across any other editor who actually reverted a correction I made to a false piece of information! -- BRG (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You have an awful lot of faith in the source you've provided. I have no doubt the information in the White's publication is factual and accurate, but I don't necessarily have any more faith in that piece of print than I do in Mike O.'s website.  And I think you miss that subtlety -- that your entire argument rests largely on the accuracy of White's.  Personally, I don't really care which source is "true".  I just prefer some reliable source is used when adding or modifying content to WP articles.  Call me crazy, but I prefer sourced statements over unsupported assertions.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  02:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Oh, I am very familiar w/ the American Radio History website. I frequently use it for references, but it's certainly not perfect.  I have run across contradictions within the site itself, within the same publication from year to year.  No source is right 100% of the time, but that doesn't really matter in this case.  You changed sourced information w/o providing a new source to verify that claim.  You keep dancing around that simple fact, and frankly, it's becoming ridiculous.  Not you yourself, mind you, but your stubborn refusal to accept basic site policy -- namely, WP:V.  You added information w/o a source, and so there was never any guarantee your edit would remain untouched.  I'm sorry you don't seem to like the current state of WP or it's community, but there's nothing I could (or would) do to change it.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  13:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * I know I had a better source when I reverted your edit because -- at the time I reverted -- you had none. No source when one is already present = revert.  Since my revert, you actually provided a source verifying your initial claim, and that's why I haven't touched it since then.  Hope this helps.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  20:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


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


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


 * This is the last time I will be responding to you on this topic. I think I've pretty much exhausted the issue.  That, and I don't care to waist any more time on this merry-go-round.  Rest assured knowing that if you make a significant change to an article -- from a subject I tend to focus on -- w/o providing a source to verify the change, I will not hesitate to revert that edit...  BTW, don't bother replying -- any further replies/posts on this topic on my talk page will be ignored (or at the very least, deleted).   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  10:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Auld Lang Syne
Blanc de blanc grand Cru champagne.jpg Here's some bubbly to ring in 2014...may the year continue to see good things for you, both wiki-wise and beyond. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)