User talk:Levdr1lp/Archive 6

Cleveland Indians history
Hello Levdr1lp (talk), I am writing this message on your user talk page in hopes of starting a discussing in reaching consensus regarding the the Cleveland Indians' history. It is my opinion (supported by multiple sources) that the Indians' history dates back to 1901. My sources are MLB.com (seen here, here and here), and Baseball-Reference.com (seen here). Both MLB.com and Baseball-Reference.com state that the Indians' history is as follows:
 * • Cleveland Blues (1901)
 * • Cleveland Bronchos (1902)
 * • Cleveland Naps (1903–1914)
 * • Cleveland Indians (1915–present)

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


 * You are welcome to open a discussion at Template Talk:Cleveland Indians.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  00:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I just started a discussion at that template's talk page. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible sock returning after absence
(Template removed)

Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Doworks000/Archive. I suspect this sock has returned to the Superman article. Too many apparent similarities across users in that page's edit history: in general, stubborn refusal to use edit summaries; creating an account as far back as 2008 and only becoming active years later; focus on comic book content; changing username; mutual contact among that page's editors; etc. Specifically, this sock and I had a minor content dispute back in April 2013 at the Superman article; after noting my renewed suspicions in an edit summary a couple days ago, I get a random post about Metropolis (Clark Kent/Superman's adult home) on my Commons talk page at User_talk:Levdr1lp#Metropolis. The sender was a newly registered user who is absent from the English Wikipedia. Random coincidence? Please advise. Levdr1 lp /  talk  03:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm no longer seeking help, so I've removed the Admin help template. I've opened a case at SPI.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  10:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Restored response
- since you removed my comment (& misused the archive top/archive bottom templates as you clearly are not "uninvolved"), I've restored it on my talk page here:
 * The case was closed for insufficient evidence, not because I was "wrong". Only a CheckUser can determine conclusively if there was actually any sock-puppetry; unfortunately, the reviewing clerk did not think there was enough behavioral evidence to justify a CU at this time (perhaps because, as one admin said, the older accounts have likely gone "stale"). Bear in mind this was not a new case, but an old one reopened: multiple socks were uncovered for editing the same way at the same article as you. If you think that amounts to "wildly throwing around false accusations", well then I guess that's your right to think so. I simply disagree with your view.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  00:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't you understand the meaning of "this matter is over, stop interacting with me"? This is the last comment of mine talking about your little games and I suggest you drop it as well. By the way, I used the archive template as a way of getting you to go away. Clearly that didn't work as you seem intent on dragging this out. —DangerousJXD (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * - No, I've pretty much said all intend to. I simply did not appreciate having my response removed from your talk page, and then having that discussion marked as "closed" (which isn't even necessary- it's your own talk page, but whatever).  If you're going to try to pass that discussion off as having been closed by some third party without my last response, well then I'm going to make sure my response is represented somewhere, even if it that means on my own talk page.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  10:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Be advised that you may not corner a user on their own talk page and badger them. A user is completely within their right to remove any content from their own talk page, and you have no right to complain about them doing so. Jehochman Talk 15:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * - Respectfully, I did not corner this user.  I did not badger this user.  I did not complain that this user removed my comment from his talk page.  I notified him that I opened a case involving him at SPI.  During that case, this user repeatedly tried to engage me on his talk page.  I only responded to him twice while the case remained open: first, I directed him to the case page; and second, I linked to information for accused parties.  After the case was closed, I apologized for any inconvenience he may have dealt with.  He then accused me of "wildly throwing around false accusations", so I responded to that claim.  This user then removed my comment (which is obviously his right to do so), but he also added archive templates and "closed" the discussion (which seems odd given the context, and inappropriate in that the archive top/archive bottom templates explicitly state that only uninvolved editors or admins may close such a discussion... but whatever, it's his talk page and he can do what he wants).  After he removed my comment & "closed" the discussion, I restored my own comment to my own talk page.  He then removed the "closed" discussion from his talk page completely (and literally suggested in the edit summary that I move it to my talk page, which I did).  That's it.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  16:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

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


 * Hello - Personally, I prefer the full names for the league, conference, & division links. As for the dates, I think simpler is better; noting the league years is helpful for teams which either participated in a separate league (AFL, AAFC, etc.) or were unaffiliated (the Packers) prior to joining the NFL.  Conference & division names, as well as their organization/structure, have changed too many times to be effectively conveyed in these templates (moving from one division/conference within the NFL to another division/conference within the NFL is not nearly as important as when a team ended its affiliation with a previous league & began a new affiliation w/ the NFL- again, my personal view).  Of course, it's probably best to raise these issues at the NFL WikiProject.  My guess is that there might not be much desire to change something which is already relatively uniform across the current NFL team templates.  Lately it seems more emphasis has been placed on simply standardizing these templates, not how exactly.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  01:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * 1991 in radio
 * added a link pointing to Morrison


 * WZZT
 * added a link pointing to 2000s

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

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


 * - I'm sure you appreciated Kevin Love's postgame shirt!  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  05:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * (to quote the shirt's subject) OH HELL, YEAH! Vjmlhds (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * - The "first air date" of 2001 may have seem obvious to you, but you're simply wrong; the format (Christian contemporary) and brand ("The Fish") launched in 2001, not the station itself. WFHM-FM -- the radio station licensed to Cleveland, Ohio, which broadcasts at 95.5 MHz -- first launched in the early 1960s.  It hasn't always identified itself as "WFHM-FM", but it is the same station nonetheless.  Note the former call signs listed in the infobox on the top right side of the article: WDGO from 1960 to 1962, WCLV from 1962 to 2001, and WHK in 2001. This is directly based on the FCC online database which clearly lists former call signs for the same station which currently identifies as "WFHM-FM".  Broadcasting & Cable yearbooks dating back to 1964 confirm the station's first air date (first noted in 1964; most recently noted in 2009).  Please bear in mind that a call sign is a means of identifying at station, not the station itself, and station call signs (as well as formats and brands, owners and staff, facilities, etc.) frequently change.  The "entity" your refer to may have begun in 2001, but the station it is associated with did not.  I suggest you review the contents of the WikiProject Radio Stations main page, as well as its talk page archive which dates back to 2005: you will find there is long-standing consensus regarding this and many other issues.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  08:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

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


 * - Excuse me? Pot, meet kettle.  You have attempted to force through a change unilaterally without any consensus.  You ignored a related discussion on the template's talk page.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  00:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * - By the way, you don't need to ping me on my talk page. I'm notified regardless.  Also, please refrain from shouting.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  00:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * - Miocic did indeed receive coverage for winning the UFC Heavyweight title, and some of that coverage did claim his title ended Cleveland's championship drought. But the vast majority of coverage over the years has dealt with the failure of Cleveland's three major professional sports teams (Browns, Cavs, & Indians) to win a championship since 1964.  Not minor league teams.  Not sports outside of those represented by the "Big 4" leagues (MLB, NBA, NFL, & NHL).  Not individuals or amateurs.  I also think Miocic -- who wasn't playing on behalf of Cleveland, and who technically isn't even from Cleveland (he's from Euclid) -- was at least partly piggybacking off the increased awareness of Cleveland's title drought, both because of the 2016 Cavs playoff run and the premiere of ESPN's Believeland, which just happened to air the same night as UFC 198.  It makes for a catchy headline, and in the click-driven digital age, I think media outlets aren't exactly eager to let facts get in the way of a seemingly more compelling story.  Moreover, the Cleveland Crunch won three titles in the 1990s, and the Lake Erie Monsters won the 2016 Calder Cup roughly one week before the Cavs won the 2016 NBA Finals.  If we're going to expand the list of what counts as a drought-ending championship (which seems inappropriate given the overall coverage), then the Crunch and Monsters each have at least as strong a claim as Miocic.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  04:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed about the curse encompassing the "Big 4". Kinda picking nits about the Euclid/Cleveland thing though (Miocic went to CSU, and Euclid is like 10 minutes away from downtown on the shoreway...close enough for piece work). Never said the the Calder Cup was the drought ender either.  People did kinda fall over themselves when Stipe won the title on the same night Believeland aired.  Though to be completely honest, UFC is the "major leagues" of MMA, while the AHL is a level below hockey's major league (NHL), so the UFC World Heavyweight Championship does have more gravitas than the Calder Cup (though I am certainly not gonna throw it back - I'll take Cleveland's current hardware collection everyday of the week and twice on Sunday). Vjmlhds (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * - I think you're confusing a few points. There is an entire article devoted to the "Big 4" (major) professional sports leagues, and UFC is not among them – rightly so given the overall coverage.  More importantly, UFC 198 was a match between Stipe Miocic and Fabrício Werdum, not Cleveland (Euclid) and Los Angeles/Brazil.  Unlike the Monsters and Crunch, Miocic was not fighting on Cleveland's behalf and/or in the city's name.  MMA is an individual sport, and like boxing before it, professional fighters typically compete for themselves.  This was not Muhammad Ali representing USA in the 1960 Olympics; it was Miocic fighting for Miocic.  After the win, Miocic reached out to his hometown (sort of), and some media outlets latched onto the drought angle, particularly given the airing of Believeland that same night and the Cavs' ongoing playoff run.  It was seemingly heartfelt (& possibly self-promotional) by Miocic, somewhat uninformed (& possibly promotional) reporting by the media, and definitely promotional for the purposes of Wikipedia.  All sources need to be taken into account and weighed appropriately.   The "Big 4" and Cleveland (Euclid) issues aside, I just don't see how the UFC is any more relevant to the drought/curse than the Crunch or Monsters (not that it really matters anyway since the curse article explictly deals primarily with the "major" Cleveland teams).   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  01:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Again...not arguing with you. Curse = Big 4, period.  I guess what I was trying to say is that because UFC is as big as it is, that some credited Stipe with breaking the curse (nowhere does anyone say that the Monsters did it).  And UFC is big - ESPN covers it heavily, cards air periodically on FOX, and FS1 airs a lot of cards.  Also get ready for all the "hometown boy defends his title" stuff that will come with UFC 203.  Once again, please don't get me wrong...the Cavs broke the curse, but UFC isn't small potatoes. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You keep overlooking the Cleveland Crunch. That and the fact Miocic did not play for Cleveland and/or in the city's name.  Small potatoes, big potatoes, fried potatoes- however "major" the UFC is, it's simply not relevant to the Cleveland title drought because Cleveland itself is not represented in UFC contests.  We can discuss how and whether to include sports outside of the "Big 4", or minor league teams affiliated with the "Big 4", but an individual fighting on his own behalf really shouldn't even be up for debate.  I don't necessarily have an issue with simply noting how Miocic's title was (mis)characterized by some media outlets (& Miocic himself) as a title for his hometown, or that it was (mis)characterized as having ended Cleveland's title drought.  But let's not kid ourselves- this was not a Cleveland title (and even if it were, *and* if we were to expand what qualifies as a curse/drought-ending title, Miocic couldn't have ended the curse/drought because the Crunch had already beat him to it).   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  03:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The Stipe references are from national sources (Fox Sports, CBS), as well as the Vancouver Sun newspaper - these weren't "guy in his basement doing a blog" sites. So when I added the "largely recognized" qualifier, it was because while the Cavs got most most the credit for breaking the curse (and rightly so), some reputable sources did credit Stipe, thus my qualifier was an acknowledgement to that fact.  And the reason Stipe got so much publicity is because UFC is a major sports entity (they just got sold for $4 Billion).  Again - agree that the Cavs broke the streak, and no issues about the revert.  Just trying to point out that UFC is not equivalent to the NPSL or the AHL - somebody accomplishes something in UFC, it gets a good chunk of coverage. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * - Ok, let's try this again. Point 1. The UFC is not one of the "Big 4" leagues, right? So either we limit the curse/drought to the "Big 4", or we open it up to other sports.  Say we open it up.  Where's the cutoff?  If you're going to include pro sports outside the "Big 4", then there's a much stronger case to include Miocic, the Crunch, & the Monsters -- all 3 -- rather than Miocic alone.  Much stronger.  Think about how much coverage there is on the "Big 4".  Now compare that to the difference you're trying to draw between the UFC and the NPSL & AHL.  Better yet, compare coverage of the "Big 4" to coverage equating the "Big 4" to the UFC.  It's not even close.  The UFC was sold for $4 billion?  Ok.  You want to use that stat to equate the UFC to the "Big 4"?  That's original research.  Point 2 (which you failed to address in your last response).  Stipe Miocic was not fighting for Cleveland.  Not on the city's behalf.  Not in the city's name.  National source or not, just because a source claims Miocic ended Cleveland's drought doesn't make it true.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  23:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree on everything you said regarding the Big 4. All I was trying to do was explain why some people gave credit to Stipe, because in the real world at large, UFC is a big thing, and the NPSL and AHL are barely a blip. And regarding point 2, when it gets down to it, MMA isn't a team sport, so Stipe doesn't count in breaking the curse - though YOU try telling him that to his face ;) Vjmlhds (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * - So you're still going with original research for Point 1? Got it.  But you still have not addressed Point 2: regardless of how certain media outlets have characterized it, Stipe Miocic was not fighting on behalf of Cleveland or in the city's name.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  02:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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


 * - Thanks for the heads up. Wish it didn't have to come to this.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  16:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * - :- with the current semi civil discussions, yeah I'm watching and reading, he still has that attitude of he is the only one who does anything to the article and he is right other editors are wrong. I personally saw nothing wrong with how it was laid out or set up to begin with.Dont get me wrong he has made some fine changes but I feel this is just for himself and his ego. He seems a little to obsessed with it. Might just be me but I don't ever see this ending, because he just doesn't seem to get the fact it's not just his article.My other issue is after looking at his last 500 edits Superman seems to be the only article he is doing anything to and that worry's me a little. Chris &#34;WarMachineWildThing&#34; (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm hoping that as long as responsible veteran editors keep watch over the article that things will work out. At least I hope so. Watchfulness is key. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * , - Thanks for checking in, WarMachine. For now, the situation seems to be under control.  If/when it again becomes a problem, I'm sure Tenebrae will take the appropriate steps.  If we were to open a case at ANI at this point, we might just end up right back where we are now (Baron gets a warning), only having used up a lot of precious time for ourselves, other users, admins, etc.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  23:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * - - No no I wasn't speaking of doing an ani right now,as I agree there isn't really a reason. I am truly concerned for the person behind the name, My concerns are for them. I'm sorry that I didnt make that clear. Chris &#34;WarMachineWildThing&#34; (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * - No problem. Good to know we're on the same page.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  23:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

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


 * - Will do.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  18:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * There is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue in which you participated in talk-page discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * - I'm sorry that I haven't weighed in yet. I'm currently involved in an unrelated (but prolonged) content dispute, but I have every intention of adding my thoughts to the ANI thread on Baron (though you &  appear to have things well under control... I'm not sure I can add much more to your impressive summary of recent developments at the Superman talk page).   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  00:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * When you are freed up I do hope you are able to weigh in. I think your input would be invaluable. Chris &#34;WarMachineWildThing&#34; (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * , - Done.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  03:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

just saw it, I think your input was unfortunately needed as well, you listed somethings i had forgot about. Chris &#34;WarMachineWildThing&#34; (talk) 03:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * As an involved editor, you may wish to keep close watch at Superman, since the subject of an ANI has continued to make edits despite other editors' issue with his contentious behavior. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * - Like a hawk. Superman has long been on my watchlist.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  21:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * He finally has gone full-blown edit-warrior. I'm going to ask for page protection, and I believe the page should be actively monitored in the meantime --Tenebrae (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Didn't you read, ? It's all been worth it, as far as he's concerned- four steps forward, one step back.  I guess it's ok to lash out and repeatedly ignore consensus, so long as you get your way in the end.  (Yes, I will definitely continue to monitor the article; this type of editing should not be rewarded.)   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  22:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

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


 * - Sure.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  12:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * - Done.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  06:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. DrRC (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Status update
To anyone reading this- I've been dealing with "real world" health issues the last several weeks. My free time has been limited, including the time I normally spend editing on this site. Fortunately, my issues are only temporary, and I expect to be back soon (probably by December). Thanks. Levdr1 lp /  talk  21:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)