User talk:Levdr1lp/Archive 4

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


 * The blog's primary contributor is still anonymous, so I wouldn't consider it reliable for the purposes of Wikipedia. Although some content for Ohio Media Watch may come from more credited sites (e.g., Lance Venta's Radio Insight), there is no consistent way of differentiating between what is and what is not taken directly from such sites.  Moreover, I think we can safely assume the bulk of Ohio Media Watch content comes from the anonymous author of Ohio Media Watch (uncredited), not Radio Insight (credited).  So, again, no, I don't think OMW qualifies as a reliable source per WP:SELFPUBLISH.  If and when Ohio Media Watch identifies him/herself, then I would consider the blog a reliable source.  Until then, no.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  00:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


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


 * I've just reread WP:SELFPUBLISH, and I'm afraid I'm going to have to revise my answer. OMW's primary contributor still needs to identify him/herself if we're ever going to be able to use OMW as a reliable source for Wikipedia -- that part doesn't change.  But the primary contributor's identity alone is not sufficient to establish OMW's reliability.  There must also be "previously published" reliable sources on the primary contributor's work as an "established expert... in the relevant field" -- in this case, news/reporting on NEOhio broadcast media.  If Julie Washington has a self-published NEO media blog, it would (probably) be reliable because she's an "established expert... in the relevant field" (assuming other third-party publications have cited her) -- she covers "local television, local radio" for The Plain Dealer.  So if OMW's primary contributor reveals his/her identity, and his/her reporting on NEO broadcast media has been "previously published" by reliable sources, then he/she would be considered an "established expert".  No previous coverage establishing expertise = not reliable when self-published.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  08:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Another example. Bob Lefsetz's self-published blog is reliable for WP because reliable third-party publications consider Bob Lefsetz an "an industry lifer" or an "industry insider".  He's clearly an expert on the music industry, so his self-published blog on the music industry is reliable.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  09:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


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


 * OMW is a no-go... for now. That doesn't mean it's a no-go forever.  OMW's association w/ Radio Insight does nudge it slightly in the more reliable direction.  We'll just have to wait and see where that blog goes from here.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  00:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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


 * Thank you. I just left a message on your talk page.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  23:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I saw that. You must have done that at the same time I wrote my message above.  It's cool you like the other ribbon better. It's your user page, so you're the boss.  I was just wanting to make sure you got what you earned.  I'll put it here just so at least you have it. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * (removed service award)  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  22:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


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

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


 * I don't want it. Okay?   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  22:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * Rest assured, the barnstars are never going back up again. And of course you awarded yourself (again) -- only this time you did it with: a) an award you created; and b) an award you named after a late user.  I think that pretty much speaks for itself.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  06:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


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


 * I made an error. I assumed you were listing yet another one of your accomplishments/awards, not merely linking to that newly-created award.  To be fair, you did recently note your contributions to the Lassie page, and I thought this was yet another userpage pat-self-on-the-back.  But I was wrong, and I apologize.  The award is a nice gesture.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  07:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


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


 * The service award is fine, the barnstar is fine. The TWA badges are a little silly -- either you're truly a veteran editor, as the service award suggests, or you're a new editor unfamiliar w/ site policies and guidelines (and thus deserve recognition for completing a beginner's tutorial).   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  07:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


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


 * I just can't take them at all seriously. Who are these other "more experienced editors"?   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  07:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


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


 * All I know is that I had never seen anything TWA-related on any user page before I same them on yours. Call me crazy, but I don't think it's a coincidence that they first appeared right around the time you decided to started to "spruce things up" there (redundant service awards, etc).  It just all feels like you've been trying to inflate your accomplishments.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  08:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

216 BARNSTAR.png Given to Levdr1lp for significant contributions to Cleveland and Cleveland related articles...especially in helping to get the Cleveland article itself to reach Featured Article status.

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

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

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

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

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


 * -- I know the image is free, but that's not an argument to include it in the article. It's a photo of the 2004 WS trophy, not the 1920 trophy, not the 1948 trophy (this assumes there even was a unique trophy given out those years).  The Indians' World Series titles are already noted in the article's infobox, history section, and the Indians navbox (among others places).  Repeatedly linking to a specific trophy w/ no connection to the team seems excessive.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  16:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

AfD Spam
Why are you spamming about this AfD? As best I can tell I have not edited the article not participated in the first deletion. Jeepday (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * -- The first nomination resulted in "no consensus" after being relisted not once, but twice. The second nomination has now also been relisted.  To encourage discussion, I notified all editors of the article, excluding bots and those editors who only contributed minor edits.  I wouldn't call that spam.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  22:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You edited the article twice in 2008. I was truly only trying to generate discussion, and never thought I was violating WP:CAN.  If anything, I would assume the majority of contributors to the article would favor keeping the article.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  22:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct I missed seeing my edits in the history Jeepday (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

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


 * The information is covered, at least in part, in Gorman's book on WMMS. I was away from a hard copy of the book earlier, so I tried to find an online source to replace the COPYVIO text as quickly as possible.  I was searching for very specific phrases, like "Moondog Coronation Ball II".  The legal document merely, and conveniently, happened to be one of the first search results I came across.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  03:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Thanks. (You don't need to ping me on my own talk page -- I'm notified regardless.)  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  04:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Parting shots
You are exactly right about Blue Salix but I don't think it was necessary to express that sour thought at Articles for deletion/Live Wire Radio. The important thing is that the article is kept, not that Blue Salix's nose is held down to smell the mistake. I say let it go. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're not wrong. Let's just leave it at that.  Thanks for helping to save the article from deletion.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  15:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess you had nothing to do with saving Live Wire Radio. "Scheduled deletion" was prevented all due to a "singular" effort.  Ha.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  21:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I'm biting my tongue. Binksternet (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll be sure to bite mine next time. Thanks again.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  22:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar (January 2014)

 * Wow, thank you, BerkeleyLaw1979!  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  01:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * Try to find another source from around that time (2006?). Until then, leave the dead link in place.  It was active at some point, so there's no reason to doubt the information contained within the WOIO article.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  00:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Controlling owner
I'm not going to war over this, but in the reference from Sports Illustrated I used for the Paul Dolan article, it specifically used the term "controlling owner", which is why I included it. It wasn't a case of me making up a term, it was a term used in what I thought was a pretty good reference, So there's no WP:OR here. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed the AP story via SI.com, and I reverted my edit.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  18:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In reference to asking me who owns the Indians, the Indians themselves list Larry as owner and Paul as Chairman/CEO. But what all this "control person"/"controlling owner" stuff basically boils down to is that Paul now is the main decision maker, and Larry is basically a figurehead.  To put it in simple real world terms, Paul's the boss, and Larry's role is for all intents and purposes ceremonial. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * All that matters is what the sources actually say, and most of them, including MLB.com, say PD is the "control person". I'm okay w/ acknowledging the term the AP uses, as long as there is a clarification that "controlling owner" has not been used by the MLB itself.  We should also be careful when using that term as "controlling owner" sounds awfully close to "majority owner", and Paul's father Larry is still the actual "owner", even if in a less directly-involved way.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  19:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine, my whole thing was just making it clear that I didn't pull the "controlling owner" phrase out of the air. When you started throwing WP:OR at me it kinda took me aback, which is why I felt the need to respond, but then you said you saw the AP via SI story yourself, so that was put to bed. "Control person" is the more commonly used phrase in the references, plus in some other references I have found, but I didn't want to overdo it with a bunch of references that all basically said the same thing. So the way the article sits now (regarding the phraseology in question) is fine. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Clearly it wasn't WP:OR since you had a reliable source for the term "controlling owner"; I was in error to remove it entirely.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  21:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * All good. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Good.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  21:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Surrender
White flag waving.svg I know when I'm licked. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't beat yourself up. The Michael Stanley photo was an appropriate addition to WNCX.  My concerns about the others were: a) that the team logos don't add any new information to the existing text of the radio station articles; and b) that the Brutus mascot has no direct connection to WKNR.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  00:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Lewin
Hi, In my research trying to figure out why Dennis Lewin's page is up for deletion I think it is you that nominated it for deletion. I would like to employ your help to guide me in an effort to save his page. I would appreciate any comments or suggestions from you. Thank you in advance for your help! Mmcard59 (talk) 02:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Dennis Lewin has not received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, so he fails WP:BASIC. He also does not meet any of the criteria under WP:MUSICBIO.  Unless you can provide multiple reliable sources on Lewin which are also independent of Lewin (WCLV links would not qualify), I see no reason to keep his article.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  03:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


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


 * WCLV is a local FM radio station. When you say it's "heard all over the world", I can only assume you mean that it streams online, something neither unique nor particularly notable in 2014.  All that matters for the purpose of establishing Lewin's notability is the level of coverage he has received from reliable, indecent sources (WCLV airs Lewin's show, so it's not independent).  As of yet, I'm not seeing enough coverage on Lewin to justify keeping his article.  And if you're going to claim he somehow satisfies WP:MUSICBIO, then please specify how exactly.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  01:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please review Non-free content before uploading additional files. And while you are certainly free to reword the Lewin article, please bear in mind that article quality does not determine notability.  If you are truly interested in saving the Lewin article, then find additional coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject.  As for contacting me through email, the answer is no.  You are free to discuss things with me here on my talk page.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  21:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


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


 * WCLV currently airs Lewin's show, so therefore it's not independent of either Lewin or his show. I would think it's fairly obvious that any radio station has a clear interest in promoting the programming it sends out over its own airwaves.  I'm also sorry if you're having trouble grasping this simple concept: only coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject, of which WCLV is clearly not one, can be used to establish basic notability.  Feel free to share other concerns you have here on my talk page, but please be sure to follow standard talk page guidelines and *indent* your posts.  Thank you.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  20:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


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


 * First off, knock off the "LoL"-ing right here and now -- that kind of tone is neither civil nor constructive and I won't tolerate it on my talk page. Secondly, and more to the point, notability on Wikipedia is generally established when a subject has received sufficient coverage from reliable sources.  So, broadly speaking, the more reliable sources on a subject, the more likely that subject is to be notable.  If that's not simple enough, then perhaps Wikipedia isn't for you.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  22:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Let's review how we got here. I'm a relatively experienced editor.  I also nominated the Dennis Lewin article for deletion.  I did this because, in my view, Lewin is not nearly notable enough for his own article.  Later on, you, a relatively new and inexperienced editor, then asked me to help save the very same article from deletion.  In other words, you asked for help from the editor who is the least likely to help you with this specific goal.  I'm willing to answer questions and help in other ways when possible, but I have no intention of reversing my position on Lewin in the absence of new evidence demonstrating his notability.  I simply disagree with you on Dennis Lewin, and you're not going to persuade me with information easily available through either the existing article or other online sources.  So let's move on already.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  01:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


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


 * There are plenty of resources available to help new editors navigate this site, including the many links posted to your very own talk page. Start there.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  21:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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


 * Yes, that's how Wikipedia works. You don't have any special right to the Beau Coup article -- WP:OWN.  Any editor who isn't blocked can edit any article at any time (assuming there isn't some special protection applied at the time).   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  06:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I NEVER CLAIMED ANY OWNERSHIP!!!!!!! I am editing a page with band members names and album titles. These are factual issues. What is your problem with what I am doing here?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmcard59 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)  Mmcard59 (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just because something about Beau Coup is "true" doesn't mean it belongs in the Beau Coup article. All facts must be verified by reliable sources (there were whole sections in that article without any sourcing).  Even then, not everything true about Beau Coup is relevant to the subject of Beau Coup for this website.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedic endeavor, not a repository for every fact ever recorded. WP:INDISCRIMINATE   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  06:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How do you feel that adding band members names when they were BEAU COUP are not relevant???? And how do you figure that their songs are not relevant?? Why did you put a banner on the top of the page. The page has already been accepted. All I was doing was adding very relevant information. Mmcard59 (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Read my edit summary. Add the other band members, in prose and w/ sources, if you feel they are so important (by convention, lists of individuals are generally limited to those w/ articles).  The page needs more sources overall, so I added the Refimprove template.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  06:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have any professional or personal ties to either Beau Coup or Dennis Lewin? Wikipedia has a clear guideline regarding conflict of interest, and you haven't edited anything outside of the Lewin/Beau Coup article.  I noticed this page from Dennis Lewin's website.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  07:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I live in Texas, not Cleveland. I grew up east of Cleveland though but left that area in February of 1980 before Beau Coup even existed and only learned about Beau Coup or his affiliation with it while listening to his radio program a few year back when he aired on a local station here in Houston. I took an interest because he was from Ohio and I loved his show. I still listen to it via the internet. Am I a personal friend of his? No, but I admire his work! I came to Wiki to view my son's page and did a search just for fun to see if he was there and saw all the hoola about his page and wanted to help. I thought it would be fun. But as it's turned out the only fun part was contacting him through his website and requesting he email copyright approval to use some pictures I found on the internet that were going to be deleted. I doubt that qualifies as a personal or professional relationship. I'm just aggravated that no matter what I do here you challenge me. Deleting my work that took me hours to compile was very rude. I would have send a message and said hey you need to do this, or you need to do that and show some respect instead of trashing my work right in my face. When I saved an edit and it went back to the page and everything was gone mad me very upset. You deleted a lot more work than I did. I was NOT the originator of either the Lewin Page OR the Beau Coup page. I just thought it would be fun to take on the endeavor. Then the Lewin page redirected to the Beau Coup page. Anyway, I just don't understand why band members names and song titles aren't good info for the page. Mmcard59 (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right, you did NOT create the article, and I apologize saying you did -- that was an error on my part. As for the content of the article, I don't necessarily have a problem w/ you adding the band member and song info so long as you are using reliable sources to verify your claims.  Also, per convention, lists of people generally only include individuals who are "notable" (i.e., those w/ a devoted article).  Personally, I would prefer if you add the band and song member info in prose.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  07:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Why are you playing tug of war with me on this.? It's better to not mention any names rather than mention 2 people that weren't even the originators of the band. It is my opinion that doing this discredits the numerous other people that were in this band. I mean no disrespect but you've turned a very informative page into a 1 paragraph nothing. 75.89.66.106 (talk) 12:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, if this is Mmcard59, then you need to log in. Secondly, assuming you are Mmcard, I'm not playing "tug of war" with you; I restored properly sourced content that you removed w/o a good reason for doing so.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  12:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I switched to my ipad and didn't realize I wasn't logged in. I feel I had a good reason. Look, whether it was sourced or not everything on the page was factual before you destroyed it. It isn't even right to only mention 2 names. Why would anyone be so mean to do that.? Don't you realize that it will just infuriate the other band members? So why make people feel that way. I feel if all the names can't be there for what ever reason, then none should be. Mmcard59 (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Find sources to verify your claims about the other band members, then add these members in prose rather than in a list. Bullet lists are generally limited to notable individuals (i.e., those w/ articles).   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  14:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I would like to start over with you. I do understand where you are coming from but it was just such a feeling of defeat to do all that work last night just to have it deleted in the middle of doing it. I'll be honest, this past 16 hrs has been a huge learning experience for me. I have forced myself to learn how to upload links properly and offer citations correctly. For this I thank you. If I had know a bit more about the process last month I may have been more successful with Lewin's page. At any rate, please accept my apology for being so upset. I just wish you had given me a warning or some time to prove my items or just chat with me. I have been working on the page today and I hope everything is ok with what I've done. I need to refer back to my members list. I've been looking at other band wiki pages and I have seen bulleted lists of names so I am going to reload only the list of the 5 main guys, 4 of which have their names and photos on the back cover of their album which Amherst has sent OTRS a copyright exception for. Then I would like to keep your heading for notable members and leave all the other names out. I understand that a lot of them were brief fill ins and probably shouldn't have been there. I only added to a list that was already there though. Then I want to continue with my songs list. I see other band pages have them. They are songs that are on their albums so I don't think it should be a problem. I hope you agree. Thank you for your help. Since you are a Cleveland Editor I will probably get your help when I work on my son's page too. That is what first brought me here since he is a Cleveland Brown and a friend of mine told me he had a wiki page. I took on the challenge of Dennis Lewin's page because I saw it was in trouble and since I could be considered a fan it was a cool challenge to undertake. Thanks again Mmcard59 (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

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


 * One sources lists WMMS as a flagship. Dozens, however, explicitly state that WTAM is the sole "flagship" and WMMS is -- and I'm quoting here -- the "FM home".  Moreover, the affiliate list is not a statement from the Indians organization, the Indians radio network, WTAM or WMMS.  In other words, it could technically be incorrect.  Maybe WMMS was listed as a flagship out of convenience.  Maybe the web master doesn't know better.  Also, while the affiliate list itself is certainly reliable, I would consider it less reliable than an Indians press release or a report from the PD or Cleveland.com.  As I've said before, sometimes it's necessary to take multiple sources into account.  Unless the Indians, the Indians radio network, WTAM and/or WMMS start referring to WMMS as a "flagship", I see no reason to change any content.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  12:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * My response is at the WMMS talk page under Stereo's new thread. I think it makes more sense to limit this discussion to a single location.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  01:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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


 * The award is fine. I appreciate your enthusiasm.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  05:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


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


 * It was probably from Stereorock's talk page. The "Warrior" star is not a barnstar (created by consensus), but rather a personal user award (created individually by you).  I thought Stereo should know this, as he has thanked you for his "first barnstar" on your talk page.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  06:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


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


 * You weren't wrong. Stereorock removed my comment.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  06:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Maybe it was performed in error, but the that you did remove my comment from the WMMS talk page.  I also find it hard to believe that you don't know how to delete content.  Editing doesn't get much simpler than adding and/or removing markup text.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  18:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


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


 * You don't need to ping me on my talk page -- I'm notified regardless. As for your response above, I'm still finding it hard to believe that you did anything but remove my comment from the WMMS talk page.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  14:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


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

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


 * Except this is not "on the up and up". There's a reason all broadcast station articles conform to the same basic standards -- WP:RADIONAMING.  You also ignored an ongoing page move request at Talk:WINT_(NE_Ohio).  You are supposed to allow a discussion to play out, not act unilaterally w/o consensus!   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  21:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


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


 * All non-admin users are required to wait until such a discussion CLOSES before proceeding w/ any change. You yourself don't think the move is controversial - so what?  There was already an ongoing page move request!  You don't have the right to unilaterally go in "fix" things (while simultaneously creating a mess of the page history) w/o regard to what other editors have to say.  WP:BOLD does *not* give you license to ignore the instructions as layed out at WP:REQMOVES, nor violate the policy as detailed at WP:TITLE.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  23:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


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


 * You knew there was a page move request BEFORE you performed the second move.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  23:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, as for WP:STICK, I don't see the connection. I'm tired of your "ready, fire, aim" approach to editing, and I will cite actual policy whenever I feel it's necessary to do so.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  00:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


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


 * As soon as you realized there was an ongoing page move request, you should have reverted your initial move and allowed the discussion to play out. Period.  Instead, you chose to ignore it.  Don't expect a thank you when you deliberately ignore policy.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  01:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, feel free to stop the name-calling.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  01:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


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


 * I am indifferent to your current emotional state (though I find it ironic that the same editor who whines about "bullying" resorts to juvenile threats). To reiterate, as soon as you realized there was an ongoing page move request, you should have reverted your initial move and allowed the discussion to play out.  Period.  There really isn't anything else to discuss.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  14:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do not refer to me mockingly in edit summaries, whether directly or indirectly, as you did here.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  14:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To sum up - I'm a juvenile, mocking whiner, and you're a browbeating, holier-than-thou bully...fair enough. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not calling you anything. Your threat ("don't make me angry...") is juvenile, not you.  It's also ridiculous.  Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "whine", but you do have a tendency to complain and blame editors who happen to point out your failure to follow basic site policies and guidelines.  The fact is you deliberately circumvented the process as specified at WP:REQMOVES.  Why should other editors have to put up with your unwillingness (or inability) to follow the rules?   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  15:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * C'mon Lev...you know darn well I wasn't actually threatening you. The Bixby/Banner/Hulk thing was meant in jest, and deep down you know it.  As far as following the rules go, you certainly seem to have a knack for finding the most obscure Wiki policies.  It's almost like a parent of a Little League baseball player who runs up to the umpire and says "Now wait...according to Rule 4, section 7, article G of the Capital City Little League manual, the bill of the player's cap must only be bent at a 20 degree angle".  NOBODY knows every single Wiki rule. (I'll bet even Jimbo Wales doesn't know every single policy that's been implemented, and he invented the thing!)  Long story short, not every single stupid thing needs for you go on the soapbox.  If you see something that you think isn't right, just edit it...no need to bash people over the head with it, especially with obscure stuff.  Vjmlhds (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a little hard to believe your threat was anything but -- how do you possibly expect anyone to get the "jest" when you so abruptly alternate your tone? And there is nothing obscure about following basic policy.  You know full well that you aren't supposed to act unilaterally in the middle of an ongoing discussion requiring consensus.  Or if you don't, you should.  You don't get to ignore basic policy and guidelines just b/c it's convenient for you.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  16:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously, you don't watch classic TV...Otherwise you would have known the "Don't make me angry" line was from the 1970s Incredible Hulk TV show. If somebody's really threatening you, they don't quote 70s TV. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I know the show. I know the line.  Your comment still came across as a threat.  If that wasn't your intent, then maybe a "jest" isn't the best choice of words during a potentially heated exchange.  Regardless, and back to the point, please do not act on your own when there is an ongoing discussion requiring consensus.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  18:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Henry Winkler Fonzie 1977.JPG As a wise man once said "Correct-a-mundo!"....and also "Aaaayyy!" Vjmlhds (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This actually made me laugh out loud. Reminds me (indirectly) of one of my favorite TV show lines: "Step into my office (men's bathroom)".   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  22:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


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


 * For someone so concerned about conflict between other editors, Gloss apparently isn't above throwing out the occasional parting shot.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  23:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please leave my name out of your conversations. Thank you.  Gloss •  talk  23:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a problem (after this ping), provided you do the same.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  23:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, well. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I missed your earlier comment about "pretending" the probable-sockpuppet's barnstar is from me. Please don't take this the wrong way, but no, I'm not going to pretend I gave you that barnstar.  If anything, you should probably disregard it altogether.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  00:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I did *not* give you a barnstar, nor did I give you permission to attach my name to the one presented by the probable-sockpuppet. Please remove my name from the barnstar.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  00:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The more I looked into it, the more that that particular star was something I didn't want to be associated with...you were right. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing my name from the barnstar that I did not give you. In the future, please do not apply my name to a barnstar, or any other award, that has not come directly from me.  As for the probable sock, I intend to open a case a SPI later today.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  13:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Your call.

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


 * No, I don't think it's anywhere near ready for GA review. Very little has changed since you withdrew your last nomination in January.  If you were to nominate the article in its current state, I would argue strongly for a quick fail.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  23:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


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


 * I apologize if I came across as blunt -- I simply see no reason in nominating the article when it will very likely fail the GA review, with or without my input. I know you may think the article is good enough for peer review, but let's be honest, you also get annoyed when I cite "wiki-ese".  Do you really think the GA process will be any different?  Do you think it will be any less detail-oriented than you think I am?  Trust me when I say this: the article is just not good enough, particularly the history section.  Not nearly.  So please do not ask about this unless and until the page has improved considerably (i.e., it will pass the level of scrutiny as outlined at WP:RGA).   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  02:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Let's take the GA process a little more seriously. There's no point in nominating an article if it will fail, and WMMS will fail if it's nominated.  I would also rather the article is GA quality w/o any nom, then it have one or more GA noms that have failed.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  02:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


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


 * You're free to do whatever you want.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  04:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth...
OMW was goofing on the "Fox 19" edit on the WOIO article on his twitter page. It turns out the same editor made a similar edit regarding KGTV San Diego. On the surface, it looks like this was vandalism. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The anon IP edit to WOIO was unsourced, and given how extraordinary the claim was, I reverted the edit rather than tagging it w/ citation needed. The anonymous blogger's take is mostly irrelevant.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  14:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


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


 * If you're going to use Twinkle, please do not claim you performed one of my edits, like you did here.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  14:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


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


 * I will assume you are now aware of this particular "detail". You may want to review similar template messages b/f posting them.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  14:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


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


 * You don't need to apologize. Just know what you're posting.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  14:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Numbers
No big deal. For me (and probably others), it's just easier to read in numeral form, but either way is acceptable. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  16:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Nikkimaria (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Award 4 U
FA Contributor Ribbon.png Awarded to Levdr1lp for all the work he put in to keeping the Cleveland article @ FA status. Vjmlhds (talk) Vjmlhds 15:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I had nothing to do with bringing the Cleveland article to featured-article status. It was first promoted to FA in 2005, long before I started editing.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  05:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You may not have gotten it there, but there's no denying you do a lot to keep it there. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand how articles "get" there. The Cleveland article's status as a featured-article was last reviewed in 2007 -- again, long before I began editing.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  00:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of what it takes to get an article noted as a GA or FA. My point was (and I'm probably at fault for not making it clear), that as you have become one of the top three contributors to the article, the work you have put in was done in such a way that it maintains (or certainly attempts to anyway) a high quality. User:Vjmlhds (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that you not present me with any more of your awards. Actual barnstars are fine.  Personal user awards created by users other than yourself are fine.  Otherwise, please, no more.  Thank you.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  02:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ummm...what's wrong with the PUAs I created? They're no different than anyone elses, and God knows there's a bunch of them out there that everybody and their grandmother put into the mix.  If I'm taking it wrong please tell me, but you're making it sound like other people's PUAs > mine. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You've given me three of your awards since January, and that's fine. I simply don't want any more.  This is not a comment on the quality of your personal user awards, or how they compare to any other awards.  I am not saying there's anything "wrong" w/ your awards.  I just think three is more than enough.  Now please respect my request and let's move on.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  04:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I can live with that. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So that your PUAs aren't singled out from the rest, why don't you just limit it to actual barnstars (those created by consensus), or nothing at all.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  01:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine by me...but just for the record, I've given my PUAs to other editors as well, and just about all of them have thanked me for them, and some have even put them on their user pages (I send them on their talk pages, and then they do with them as they please afterwords). I'll respect your wishes, but I just wanted it to be known that your view was in the minority in regards to my PUAs. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't care what other editors have done with your awards. I do care that you respect my request, stop giving me your awards, drop the issue, and let us move on.  If it makes you feel any better, then stop giving me any and all personal user awards (that way you're not singled out from other PUA editors).  Barnstars are okay as they are created through consensus.  Otherwise, no more awards.  Okay?   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  05:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I said I would respect your request, and I'm gonna stick to it. Consider it dropped. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  21:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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


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


 * I nominated the Commons file for deletion for being a copyright violation, and shortly thereafter it was deleted as such. It follows, then, that your cropped uploads on the English Wiki are derivatives of a non-free file (meaning the uploads themselves are also non-free).  Although the Flickr user gave away certain rights to the original photo, he has no right to freely distribute the Cleveland Cavaliers logos in the photo as they are under copyright.  Please see Commons:Derivative works for more information.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  18:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


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


 * You're still responsible for what you upload. That said, you're not the first user to upload a file by mistake.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  18:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


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


 * I'm not teaching you a lesson. I'm fixing some of your mistakes (i.e., those in Cleveland/NEO files, articles, etc.).  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  02:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


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


 * The issue of copyright is not some "little detail"; it is fundamentally important to how Wikipedia functions as a free online encyclopedia. Please review WP:5 and Wikipedia is free content if you plan to upload any additional files.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  03:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


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


 * I'm not "using a sledgehammer". I'm addressing a fundamentally important concept you have neglected, one which you refer to as a "little detail" (i.e., copyright w/ respect to WP:Wikipedia is free content).  Moreover, this is in response to a thread you started on my talk page.  I didn't chase you down and beat you over the head with this, so spare me the sympathy plea.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  03:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


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


 * I have not gone through all of your uploads. You uploaded images to articles I follow, and I listed some of those uploads at WP:PUF.  I'm more of less indifferent to how you go about editing, but as you pointed out, you came to me looking for an explanation.  I think I've provided one.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  04:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Then let's be done with this thread.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  04:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Okay, we'll try this one more time. Let's be done with this thread.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  04:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Okay, we'll try this a third time... Let's be done with this thread.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  21:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Fourth attempt. Let's be done with this thread.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  05:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * The FCC online database still identifies the station licensee as "Good Karma Broadcasting, LLC" for both WKNR and WWGK. I have no issue w/ using the new company name in the owner fields, but leave the licensee fields unchanged for now.  As I said in my edit summary, the old LLC "Good Karma Broadcasting" may still exist as a subsidiary to the new LLC "Good Karma Brands".  Practically speaking, are they the same organization?  Probably.  But the FCC online database differs, and there are two separate owner-licensee fields in Infobox radio station for cases just like this.  As for "ESPN Cleveland", this secondary (or "collective") brand is already noted in the lead of both articles.  There is no reason to clutter each infobox w/ redundant, non-specific information.  "ESPN Cleveland" is not unique to either WKNR or WWGK, whereas "ESPN 850 WKNR" and "ESPN 1540 KNR2" are.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  04:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * I agree with you completely about JoJo having an article, him being sufficiently nobtable, etc. Really.  It's just that these PC schedules change so often, and just keeping track of who is and is not currently working a shift, regardless of day and time, is hard enough to follow.  Trust me on this.  I have scoured the internet and print mags for any and all information on Premium Choice.  You may have noticed that I recently added/updated more than eighty references on the subject.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  04:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


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

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


 * It is the responsibility of the editor who adds content to properly source that content, so don't blame me when another editor neglects to verify his/her claims. It's not my job to do someone else's work, nor is it your job to critique my work.  Kindly AGF, and move along.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  07:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


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


 * You're reading too much into this. I was simply stating the fact of the matter: whoever added the pop culture content to the Cleveland Browns article failed to provide any sources.  It doesn't really matter who that person is.  What drew me to the article was the use of a non-free image which both lacked a fair use rationale and failed to conform to WP:NFCCP, namely "minimal extent of use".   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  15:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

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


 * While I agree with the general sentiment you've expressed (encouraging involvement, etc.), I stand by removing unsourced material about living individuals, particularly of minors: "Contentious material about living persons... that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." It's not my job to educate any one editor or group of editors about this site's policies and guidelines.  If you feel so strongly about treating these "kids" with special care, then I certainly won't get in your own way of doing so.  In the mean time, however, please do not violate site policy just b/c you happen to disagree with my edits.  You are free to contact each of these editors individually or start a discussion at the National Junior Classical League talk page to explain why such content may be removed at any time.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  13:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Just so you're aware, this are legitimate social media pages and they are official branches of the NJCL. I have no idea why you would suspect otherwise since anyone who goes against this has a bunch of people breathing down their necks. Also, do you think anyone is going to care if we violate site policy here? Of course not, and I am not going to start making a war out of this. However, we should assume good faith and fix the issues here instead of becoming deletionists and removing legitimate social media sites and information. If you don't like that it's uncited, then fix it so that the material is well-sourced instead of removed. Finally, don't lecture me on the rules, as I am well-versed in them already. Because of this, I also know when to ignore them in the rare occasions that they should be bent and not to be a dick when things aren't going your way. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not "lecturing" you on the rules; I was linking to an important site policy, one which you think is okay to ignore in this instance. If you don't wish to be reminded of a particular policy, then perhaps you shouldn't selectively conform to it.  As for the social media pages, it is already well established that such sites are excessive and not appropriate for an article's external links section.  If the official site URL redirected to a social media page, then you might have a case.  But given the fact this organization not only has an official website separate from any social media platform, but which also links to the social media accounts in question, there is absolutely no reason to include them -- see WP:LINKSTOAVOID.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  16:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I was just thinking about this while driving to work, as I was wondering if you wanted to work on collaborating to expand that article now, mostly because what is there exists to varying degrees of information. What's your opinion on that approach, as I have photos to add of events, but I feel like it wouldn't be worth it if there was nothing there talking about it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Your photos are excellent. And believe it or not, I'm no deletionist -- in general, I feel the more content, the better.  That said, I'm in no mood to reinterpret basic site policies or guidelines.  Add whatever you want so long as it reasonably conforms to established editing practices.  I myself will focus on state-level content whenever possible (admittedly, not as often as I would like).  My stance on BLP material has evolved somewhat; I now think it is completely inappropriate to post unsourced BLP information on minors (in other words, just about any JCL member- national, state, or local). This really should be a hard and fast rule on this site, and quite frankly, I would be very surprised if my view has not already been expressed by other experienced community members.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  18:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I do agree with you on the information part, although I am more hesitant to add photos of them if they're easily identifiable. In any case, would you like to fix that page up so that it makes a bit more sense to read, as it currently is all over the place in many respects, and I would like to have more of a history on there, amongst other things. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine any good reason to identify any individual JCL member in a photograph. Keep it general-- large crowds of nameless faces, or photos w/o people at all.  State chapters of the National Junior Classical League obviously needs work, and I will contribute whenever possible.  I wouldn't worry about the quality of its current state, however.  An incomplete entry on state-level chapters is better than no entry at all.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  13:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

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

WCLV
I apologize for reverting your new logo.

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

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


 * Common mistake, no harm done.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  18:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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


 * Huh?? I added a ref last night to the WMMS article which indicates there are 17 or so affiliates in the Cavs radio network.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  20:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


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


 * I am interested in knowing when the WTAM/WMMS/iHeartMedia Cleveland radio contract expires. If you have any reliable sources addressing this, I would appreciate you sharing them.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  22:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Thanks. I've had just as little luck (obviously).  It would appear the PD/NEOMG/Cleveland.com, Crain's, that Elyria paper, the Beacon Journal, Scene magazine, etc., are ALL failing to do their jobs here.  Professional journalists aren't asking the simplest of questions.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  23:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


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


 * LeBron James' returning to Cleveland is irrelevant. The Cavaliers contract was due to expire at the end of the 2013–14 season.  All of 2013 and nearly half of 2014 comes and goes, and what is there to show for it?  Absolutely no reporting on the broadcast rights.  It's important to know because there's no reason we (Cavs fans, radio listeners, and the public at large) shouldn't know.  The public airwaves are public, at least nominally, and the teams' facilities are heavily subsidized w/ public tax dollars.  I have a right to know if the Cavs are airing on this station or that station and for how long.  These writers are being lazy.  I'm not singling out any individual reporter, but yeah, the news community as-a-whole definitely "dropped the ball", no pun intended, on this one.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  23:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


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


 * On LeBron- Yes, he is irrelevant w/ regard to reporting-in-general. Journalism is not a zero sum game.  "Sorry, but we can't report on [insert important local issue] because a high profile professional athlete has returned to town."  Are you kidding me?  The word that comes to mind is "unacceptable".  There was reporting on the Browns broadcast rights.  There was reporting on the Indians broadcast rights.  There was no such reporting on the Cavs radio rights.  That's unacceptable (and, quite frankly, ridiculous).  Again, I'm not blaming any single person, but local media in general.  On OMW- Ohio Media Watch is not news.  News is accountable (at least in theory); anonymous bloggers are not.  Lastly, on characterizations- No, I'm not "wound up", and I would appreciate if you would refrain from characterizing my habit/mood/tone.  Comment on content, not the editor.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  08:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


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


 * LeBron's return is irrelevant with respect to the responsibility local media has to report the news. Quite frankly, the complete lack of coverage on the Cavs radio rights is downright embarrassing.  If anything, LeBron's return magnifies the issue's importance.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  17:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


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


 * I think you're seriously overestimating the time and effort necessary to adequately report on this. There were no such issues when the Browns rights were up, nor when the Indians rights were up.  There's no excuse here.  Either local media as a whole is being lazy, or there is a deliberate attempt on the Cavs part to keep this out of the press.  Granted, some outlets are more at fault than others.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  17:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


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


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


 * Yesterday's announcement confirms just how ridiculous this situation would've been without such confirmation on the status of the team's rights. And while the PD may not be asleep, they are certainly proving themselves timid (as are Channels 3, 5, 8, 19, Scene, the Lorain paper, the Beacon, Crain's, etc.).  No end date?  Really?  This isn't reporting so much as repeating the team's press release.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  14:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, I remember reading a quote once, something like "It's only news if someone doesn't want the information to get out- everything else is advertising."  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  17:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Jeff and Flash
I'd like to know your opinion on something for I go knee-deep into it.

I was thinking about writing an article about Jeff and Flash. I'd think because of their long tenure, success, and influence during the "glory days" of WMMS in the 70s and 80s, that they'd fit WP:N standards. But I'd rather be sure before I put in all the time, research, and effort it would take to put together a halfway decent article. It would be a kick in the gut to put in all that work and have somebody from the Wiki nether-regions (not referring to you, because you know J&F and their history) say "I never heard of them...they don't fit WP:N standards...blah, blah, blah". and nominate it for deletion.

Basically, I just want to be certain it would be worth the effort before proceeding. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Ehh, I'd have to say no. I think Jeff and Flash benefited from the station more than the station benefited from Jeff and Flash.  I think it's a stretch to say the show (or its hosts) were particularly influential (the whole "Zoo" concept was lifted straight from Scott Shannon at Z100).  The show was never syndicated, and there isn't much coverage outside Cleveland on the pair.  They had a long, successful stint in mornings, and they obviously should be in the WMMS article, but that's about it.  Compare the two to the coverage Kid Leo or Donna Halper has received, and you'll see what I mean.  I wouldn't even necessarily put them on par w/ Big Chuck and Lil' John.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk


 * Thanks for saving me a lot of work. With all the talk we've done about WMMS lately, it got me thinking about Jeff and Flash, and seeing as I did articles for Lanigan and Malone, the idea rolled around in my head about doing an article for them, but you're right...J&F were spokes, but WMMS was the wheel.  Lanigan basically put WMJI on his back to make it a powerhouse (and Jimmy Malone certainly benefited as well). Vjmlhds (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice job.
Just wanted to tell you - nice job putting together the articles for the Indians, Browns, and Cavaliers radio networks.

Vjmlhds (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks (though I did not start the Cleveland Indians Radio Network article).  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  18:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I see that now...but your handprints are all over it, so I just figured you started that one as well. Looking at it, that article wasn't touched in 4 years, but then when WMMS came aboard, it really started to get worked on, and you were front and center.  So you didn't start it, but you did get it into decent shape. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * No, it was actually only a redirect until February 2013. There was no article at the target until after the Indians announced the WMMS simulcast in January 2013.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  19:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, at the end of the day, nice job on getting it in order. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  19:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Just so we're clear.
Just so there's no mistake - I am not the "Fruit" guy on the Firelands article. Go check out the IP if you have any doubts. I don't have a sock account, nor do I try to vandalize anything. I know a few years ago I pulled a stunt, but that was then. Any changes I made to the Firelands article have been backed up by sources (whether you agree with the sources is another matter) and have come in good faith and with good intentions. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm going to refrain from commenting on the vandalism-only account for now. As for your "sources", none explicitly state that "Vacationland" is a term for "Firelands".   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  21:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, Fruit has been indefinitely blocked, as he's vandalized other pages as well. All I'm doing is trying to make it as clear as I can that IT WASN'T ME.  When I saw what he did on Firelands, the first thing I thought was "Oh crap, Levdr's gonna think it was me."  So I'm telling you straight up, man to man, that was not me. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm going to refrain from commenting on the vandalism-only account for now.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  22:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not asking for a comment, all I'm doing is making sure undo fingers don't get pointed my way. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I would hope that with the revelation of the 2nd "Fruit" account coming to light, that you could plainly see that I am in no way connected with it. It's obvious that his sole purpose in life was to get his jollies out of going to random articles and causing trouble.  You should know after all this time I don't roll that way.  I worked too hard on the Firelands article to find (what I thought were) good sources (I was even researching 1960s beauty pageants for crying out loud), so why would I want throw it all away with nonsense and insults?  Some editors are what I like to call "Joker editors" - in reference to the Joker in The Dark Knight.  Remember the line that best described the Joker in the movie - "some people just want to see the world burn" - well people like "Fruit" you can say "just want to see Wikipedia burn" with their insane edits.  So I would kindly appreciate you dropping any suspicions you have that I'm "Fruit"...you wouldn't have opened the SPI if you didn't think I was.  So come on...enough already, OK. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's appropriate for me to discuss this here. Please direct your comments to Sockpuppet investigations/Vjmlhds.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  00:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It most certainly IS appropriate for you to discuss here...you were the one who wanted the SPI to start with. Quite frankly, I find it insulting that you would even THINK I was "Fruit"  I don't exactly appreciate being thought of as a mindless vandal, as "Fruit" obviously is.  I'm really beginning to think you just did this out of spite, as there's no logical reason I would even CONSIDER doing WP:GHBH - let alone be a sock.  I came to you to try to put out the fire before it started, because I know how it looked.  And as further evidence has shown, "Fruit" has made a habit out of doing this to various articles and various editors.  Being compared to "Fruit" is essentially character assassination on your part - "Watch this guy, he's no good".  Not cool - that's all I'm saying. Vjmlhds (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This was not some rushed "character assasination". I laid out my suspicions -- with supporting evidence -- in a plain and deliberate manner.  Now it's up to an administrator to take whatever action, if any, is necessary (I can't help it if there's currently at backlog of cases at WP:SPI).  And let's not forget that I already gave you the benefit of the doubt once before in April 2012 regarding Media in Cleveland, nor was I the only editor who doubted your "but my cousin did it" story.  You may want to think twice before equating my opening a SPI case w/ a personal attack -- that in itself may be considered a personal attack on YOUR part ("Serious accusations require serious evidence.").  In my opinion, and given what information I have access to, there is nothing that definitively proves you were socking at the Firelands article.  At the same time, the timing of your edits around "Fruit's", along w/ "Fruit" lashing out at me in his edit summary, makes me wonder.  This was also in the context of an ongoing content dispute.  We all get frustrated sometimes.  One time you even considered retiring.  So, in my view, it's not outside the realm of possibility that you might've attempted to take out your frustration on me anonymously.  Now this really is the last I have to say about this on my talk page.  If you have anything further to say, please take it to the SPI case page.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  02:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Really, dude...all you have to do is look at "Fruit's" edits (under both his names) and know that's not how I operate. Look at "Fruit's" edits under his original name...if you compare his and my edit history, you'll see that we made simultaneous edits on October 3...he was screwing around on editor's user pages, while I was working on the WTAM article.  There's no feasible way that I could have done both at the exact split second.   My point is that he has done this garbage before, got blocked, came back under a new name and went at it again.  Just so happens, he came across the Firelands article.  That was just pure luck.  I don't know how else to convince you otherwise.  Vjmlhds (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * What was Fruit's "original name"? Are you talking about User:Fruit is for life and for the articles also, User:Fruit is good for life. Fruit to the articles, or some other account?   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  04:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The second one (Fruit is good for life...). At least that's the name he used on Oct 3.   Vjmlhds (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, nevermind. I thought you meant there was a confirmed master sock for both "Fruit" accounts.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  04:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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


 * Thanks.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  23:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Half a barnstar

 * Thanks, Ivanvector.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  23:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Who woulda thunk it...all these years of us feudin', fussin', and fightin' got us a barnstar. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It was certainly unexpected.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  04:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

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


 * One small proviso. Please note the  I included in my post to your talk page.  You can add a wikilink to the image itself simply by placing " link= " in the Example.jpg markup.  As an example, I have linked to your talk page using the "fist bump" photo above.  Thanks.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  23:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

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


 * No problem. My concern was not so much whether you were right or wrong, but over the lack of any source to support your claim.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  22:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

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


 * I'm still not convinced, but I also don't care enough to pursue it.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  15:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * On second thought, WUAB is the only media outlet from that group (Radio flagships, Radio Network, Spanish Radio, & Fox Sports Ohio), which does not carry games throughout the season. Those 5 games effectively amount to specialty programming, and while I don't have a problem including the 5-games-info in the WUAB article, the station itself really does not belong in the team navbox.  Moreover, the Cavaliers website makes no mention of WUAB on its "Where to Watch?" page.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  15:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * On third thought, I'm going to let this go for now. I'm conflicted at the moment.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  15:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I feel like I'm watch a tennis match here :) Seriously though, here's the best way to look at this...WUAB had long been the free TV home of the Cavs, while FS Ohio was the cable home, each airing X amount of games. In 2006, a new deal was arranged to where FS Ohio would be carrying the bulk of the games, while channel 43 carried 5 via simulcast  So the relationship between the Cavs and channel 43 goes back 20 some odd years.  They don't carry as many games as they used to, but they still carry some (and will also air playoff games - a foreign concept around here the last 4 years, but shouldn't be an issue now), and serve a distinct purpose of being the team's over-the-air outlet. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The team's history w/ the station is irrelevant w.r.t. the navbox.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  16:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

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


 * I'm glad "Fruit" was exposed.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  13:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Or am I missing something somewhere?

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


 * Yes, it's fair game. But I'll think twice about putting in the effort of obtaining such a free file if you're just going to plaster it in multiple articles.  Why don't you crop your own version from the source file?  Better yet, why don't you find a different free file of Donovan?  What good is it if my cropped version is in every article related to Donovan?  I cropped a new version specifically for the network article, and I just wish you would respect that.  Using (or, your case, re-using) a free file is easy.  Finding one isn't always so easy.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  19:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Wasn't trying to ruffle any feathers. I took your advice and uploaded my own version from the source file.  Just thought I was playing by the rules. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

 * Happy Holidays.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  12:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

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

In the reference they:
 * 1) use the CCM acronym for Contemporary Christian Music
 * 2) say that most of their CCM stations use the Fish branding

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

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


 * You already opened a discussion on the article's talk page.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  17:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)