User talk:Levdr1lp/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Enough.

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

@Vjmlhds: You really are reading way too much into my editing. I'm not "reestablishing my presence" so much as I'm playing catch up. I've been extremely busy the past couple of months with virtually no down time left for Wikipedia, and now I'm eager to get back. My primary focus has always been local radio in Cleveland, so you shouldn't be at all surprised I'm continuing to focus on that same general topic now. I can't help if our interests sometimes overlap. I can, however, control how I engage you -- I've always been tough, but also fair. I always try to follow this site's policies and guidelines closely and deliberately, not just over content but also in how to interact w/ fellow editors. I expect no less from you or anyone else. This sort of posturing on your end achieves nothing, and worse, potentially escalates whatever perceived conflict may exist. In the future, I hope you choose to discuss things w/ me in a calm, civil, and constructive manner, b/c I won't tolerate anything less on my talk page. Levdr1lp / talk 21:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not your place to be "tough", because your standards as to how policies are interpreted are not the gospel. The Bob Frantz pic certainly belongs on the WHK page because he is promoted as their primary local personality (just like Triv is on WTAM). Just so happens there was already a free use pic with Frantz in it that I could adapt to use for the page. Doug Dieken is most certainly a VERY notable part of Browns history and lore, and his pic on the Browns article is certainly "pertinent". "OMG! - The pic is now on 3 articles instead of 2 out of over 4 million on Wikipedia!" The issue isn't that I'm not following Wiki guidelines, but that I'm not following them to your standards. That is where the conflict lies. Remember - he who rides the high horse too much is more likely to be thrown off...and getting thrown off a horse hurts. Vjmlhds (talk) Vjmlhds 21:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: I am not going to discuss three different content issues all at once in a single thread. Please either start separate sections for each issue on my talk page, or, preferably, open discussions on each of the relevant article talk pages. That said, as a show of good faith -- and since you're so insistent on the matter -- I am willing to drop the issue of the Frantz photo provided there is some clarification that the image does not illustrate him in his capacity as a WHK employee. I suppose his appearance hasn't changed too dramatically since the WTAM photo was taken. Now can you please dial back the aggressive tone? I really would prefer to move on, and I suspect you would too. Levdr1lp / talk 22:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Beatles/HOF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ballgame! Vjmlhds (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

TWL HighBeam check-in

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

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

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

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

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

Michigan templates

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

@Corkythehornetfan: Thanks for the clarification and update. Like Jweiss11 on your talk, I'm all for improved WP:ACCESS so long as the white text is consistent across all other relevant NCAA team templates. Levdr1lp / talk 21:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I am currently going through and changing them if they need changed, as well as updating the colors if needed per the schools websites. Corky | Chat? 00:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Browns/STO

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

@Vjmlhds: While that may be the case, it does not verify your claim. In the absence of a reliable source which explicitly states that STO & the Browns have ended their broadcast partnership, we're left to wait until the 2015 season/preseason begins before changing the content of the Browns template, the STO article, etc. Also, if you again feel the urge to change this content unilaterally, please first discuss the issue and help establish consensus at Talk:SportsTime_Ohio#Browns where there is already an ongoing discussion on this topic. Levdr1lp / talk 01:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you to try to show that the Browns and STO are in fact still in business together. I don't have to verify anything, as I simply don't mention STO in Browns related stuff. The verification comes when information is added, not subtracted. If something isn't included in the article, then there's no need to verify it. For example, if I write in the article about the sun that the sun is blue, then yes, I'd have to verify it. But if I don't add it into the article, then there's nothing that needs to be verified. All I did was remove any mention of STO. If the Browns and STO wind up working together, they can always be re-added (w/ verification), but all signs indicate they aren't, thus the prudent thing is to not mention them at all until we have clear confirmation one way or the other. There's no to need to verify anything if there's nothing there to verify. Vjmlhds (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Please direct your comments to Talk:SportsTime Ohio#Browns where there is already an ongoing discussion on this topic. Thank you. Levdr1lp / talk 15:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

ENOUGH!

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

BTW - please read the last line carefully.

@Vjmlhds: There is already an ongoing discussion at Talk:SportsTime_Ohio#Browns. More importantly, you have already agreed to drop the issue of the STO-Browns partnership (how do you expect to be taken seriously if you can't even stay true to your own word?). You don't need my "permission" to make changes, but you are obligated to help reach & (ultimately) defer to consensus. No matter how strongly you may feel about a particular point, you are not entitled to make unilateral changes to stable content when those changes are under dispute. Levdr1lp / talk 23:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Take your dispute and stick it somewhere. I have added a reference straight from the Browns which clearly states that WEWS is the TV home of the team, and makes absolutely no mention of STO. To put blatantly false info about WKYC in the article just shows you're more interested in picking a fight than doing what's good for Wikipedia. So to quote Chris Jericho, kindly shut the hell up. You're so full of BS your eyes are brown. (and save the WP:Personal crying - shoulda thought of that when you accused me of being a sock.) Vjmlhds (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: I think your comments speak for themselves. Either discuss the disputed content or don't. Levdr1lp / talk 23:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

All you've done the last 5 years is pick fights with me...how can any reasonable person take your criticism of me seriously or any of my edits seriously knowing that you've spent the last half-decade being my own personal troll. The content is indisputable - you put blatantly false content in the article just to pick a fight, because I dared not ask your permission first. Go do what you do best and insult some other editor's character and accuse them of being dirty. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: While it is true that I reverted your edit regarding WEWS-TV, you also keep conveniently overlooking the fact that you repeatedly removed the content on STO, an issue we previously settled on the STO talk page. I made it clear in my edit summary that you were free to restore the WEWS-TV content provided that you leave the STO content intact. It's not my responsibility to selectively restore content you have removed. Levdr1lp / talk 23:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I never touched the template - all I did was edit the list of broadcasters article to reflect updated information, which was WEWS over WKYC, and I removed the STO stuff because (judging by the reference I included straight from the Browns) STO is a non-factor. And you can easily edit the article in a way that had WEWS in it...you were just looking to pick a fight. I notice a pattern - you lay low for awhile, then you come out of the clear blue and come up swinging...it's like you have withdrawals and need a fix or something. Go find another dealer. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: To reiterate, you agreed on the STO talk page to wait to remove/update content on the STO-Browns partnership until one of two things happens: either a reliable source presents itself which specifically addresses the STO-Browns partnership for the 2015 NFL season; or, the 2015 NFL begins, at which point it will become clear if the STO-Browns partnership continues. You agreed to that, but you didn't abide by it, so here we are. Don't be surprised that your info on WEWS-TV was reverted-- that edit included changes to the STO content, something you keep overlooking here. It's not my responsibility to selectively restore agreed-upon content you have removed. Levdr1lp / talk 00:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Major difference between agreeing to something and simply not pushing forth to save myself a migraine. I never agreed to anything, I just backed off because quite honestly, I didn't feel like arguing anymore. Dealing with you is really comparable to dealing with a 6-year old that keeps wanting a cookie - sometimes you just have to give them the freaking cookie to shut them up. But at the end of the day, you know I'm right - you just want to be difficult. That's OK...they're come a day when you'll have to eventually put a sock in it. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Yes, you did agree in principle when you dropped the issue at the STO talk page. You agreed to allow the STO-Browns content to remain as is, even if you disagreed with the reasoning behind it. You are, however, welcome to further discuss the STO-Browns partnership (or lack thereof) if you are no longer satisfied with the existing consensus-by-default. Just try to stick to what you agree to this time around, whatever the outcome. Levdr1lp / talk 04:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

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

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

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

Sign up now

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

FYI

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

The recent exchange and the block

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

@Drmies: I just don't want this type of disruption and harassment to continue. Thanks for checking in. Levdr1lp / talk 04:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand. As the unblocking admin, I have a certain responsibility to make sure that you won't get harassed by this editor anymore, but I also have to accept their good faith. Please do not hesitate to let me know if the editor resumes this kind of behavior--but I trust, and hope, that it won't happen again. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: Will do. And thanks again. Levdr1lp / talk 04:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on User:Vjmlhds

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

@Vjmlhds: I simply will not tolerate continued interference every time we have a content dispute, particularly when you ignore discussions involving other editors. Case in point: the {{Sandusky Radio}} template. Without discussion, you moved the template to another name. When that move was partially undone by another editor, you reverted his edit. When I reverted your move and asked that you formally open a move request per WP:REQMOVE, only then did you open a discussion on the talk page at Template_talk:Sandusky_Radio#Request_move. Three editors besides myself weighed in, two of which opposed your move and one called your desired title "ambiguous". When it became clear that not one editor supported your desired move target, you withdrew the request. One month later, you opened a second move request at Template_talk:Sandusky_Radio#Request_move which you also withdrew. Despite this clear lack of consensus from multiple editors to change the name of the template, you have changed the visible title field of the template at least four times since last November 2014.[1][2][3][4] Let's also not overlook that you have repeatedly ignored the result to merge at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Really_Big_Show at least four times since February 2012.[5][6][7][8]

Similarly, it is difficult to take you at your word when we -- the two of us -- reach an agreement on content and you later change that content when you think I'm not watching. Examples include Talk:WKNR#Branding and Talk:WKNR#Lead, followed by your most recent reverts there [9][10][11][12]; as well as Talk:WMMS#FM flagship vs. FM home, Talk:WMMS#Format/logo, Talk:WMMS/Archive_2#99X_and_Nikki_Sixx, Talk:WMMS/Archive_2#Programming, and Talk:WMMS/Archive_2#WMMS/Tribe, followed by your most recent reverts there.[13][14][15][16]

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

In this context, please reconsider the following carefully:

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

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

There is a difference between letting you have your way to shut you up, and agreeing with you. I don't agree with you about anything, it's just that communicating with you is like banging my head into a brick wall...it feels so good when I stop. And I repeat what I said before...the only one who seems to ever take issue with any of the changes I make to these particular pages is you. Therefore, am I to believe I am always wrong and you are always right? Or am I to believe that you just seem to want to pick fights because you have a holier-than-thou attitude regarding Wikipedia, and you act as though I am beneath you somehow. I'd have less animosity towards you if you were to apologize to OMW for doing to him what I assume you'd be very upset about if someone would try to do with you here (i.e. out you...not cool). You talk about assuming good faith with you...you certainly didn't do that with me with the SPI. I keep bringing it up because I told you that wasn't me, but instead of assuming good faith and taking me at my word, you opened an SPI...you don't accuse people of stuff unless you can proof positive back it up. And third, you aren't NEOMD...fine, but the stunt he pulled was right out of your playbook, and I'm not the only one that thought that (I know people outside of Wiki that know all about you). And I'll make the same offer I made you earlier....you let my versions of the articles in question stand for 2 weeks, and see if anyone else objects. If so, I'll know it's a me problem...if not, than I'll know it's a you problem. I say witch hunt because when X goes after Y for the same stuff over and over again, who's to say X is always right? This site ain't your personal playground, so quit acting like it is. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: I'm not going to bargain for things you've already agreed to, and I'm not going to apologize yet again for something I've already apologized for. And I will continue, as I have for some 3 years, as well as per Drmies' suggestion, to keep off-site things off-site. Levdr1lp / talk 03:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The words "I agree" never once came out of my mouth (or off my fingers via the keyboard) in any of the disputes we had...You just like fighting wars of attrition until people give in to you...that's not making agreements, that's just wearing people out. You call it "agreements" I call it giving in. Constantly giving in is why you have developed the attitude you have - you think if you just keep pushing and pushing and pushing, that you'll eventually get what you want because they'll just want you to go away. And I do find it somewhat amusing that when I make certain changes, they're fine and dandy with 99.9 percent of the rest of the Wiki World, but when you see them after crawling out from under your rock, you go right in to hissy fit mode (when you blank your user page because someone won't back down from you, it's a hissy fit). Vjmlhds (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Actually, I've taken two extended breaks from editing in the last few months (I'm still trying to have a life outside of this site). After returning to update the Premium Choice online stream feeds yesterday, I found that you had basically gone back on your word during my absence -- namely at WMMS and WKNR. I found your blatant disregard for established consensus at {{Sandusky Radio}} and The Really Big Show even more troubling. So I tried to undo what I perceived to be disruptive edits on your part. You then threatened to "break my fingers" and "bury a hatchet in my skull". After being blocked yet again, naturally you pleaded: "I'll never do it again!" So then a couple forgiving admins let you go. I tried to reach out to you, and you quickly threw it right back in my face. Let's be clear: I blanked my user and talk pages yesterday out of sheer frustration (not unlike your "retirement" not so long ago). I was also just completely astounded at your apparent lack of self awareness. I don't immediately agree to a point in a discussion and that means I'm doing something wrong? Am I supposed to think being block repeatedly for edit-warring is more or less constructive? I did happen to notice another ANI for edit-warring was recently filed against you -- seems like you're "pushing" a fair amount yourself. Levdr1lp / talk 04:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Side note

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

Thank you for apologizing about OMW. You're not NEOMD, and I'll accept that as fact - issue dropped. And I'm sorry, but I'm just not built to be like The Borg - assimilation to hive mind is something that I refuse to be a part of. Somebody does something that isn't up to snuff, I'm gonna call them out on it. People get their buttons pushed enough, they lash out. The hatchet in the skull and breaking fingers stuff was more about letting off steam than me actually wanting to cause physical harm (you ain't worth going to jail dude...sorry). Just because you're on Wikipedia, it doesn't mean you have to check you individuality at the door. If you want to become a Wikiborg, have fun...not my bag. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: There are only four lights, my friend. Levdr1lp / talk 23:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Not getting the 4 lights reference (I'll kick myself it's is a borg joke). Vjmlhds (talk) 01:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)~

@Vjmlhds: Chain of Command (Star Trek: The Next Generation). Levdr1lp / talk 01:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: I've removed the transgender joke. Please do not post that type of material on my talk page. Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 02:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The Really Big Show

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

@Drmies: I have repeatedly encouraged Vjmlhds to request a split if he thinks it's necessary. I have no problem with another AfD whatsoever. Levdr1lp / talk 03:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

If he reverts your redirect, you'll know what to do. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: Just so I'm clear, you're saying I should open a proposed split myself? Will do if that's the case. Levdr1lp / talk 03:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

No, if the redirect is reverted, and thus essentially the article is recreated again, take it to AfD; a "delete/merge" would established a new consensus that will solidify the redirect. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: Ah, got it. Will do. Levdr1lp / talk 03:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Mea Culpa

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

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

Award 4 U (October 2015)

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

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

@Vjmlhds: Please do not give me awards like this. I was not awarded this Erasmus award, the Wikipedia community as a whole was. Moreover, it's not your place to bestow this award on me or anyone else. If you are going to present me with an award, present it on your own behalf, not in the name of some other group/organization/individual. If you wish to give me a barnstar, that's fine as they are created by consensus. Otherwise, please stop w/ the awards. Thank you. Levdr1lp / talk 05:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't give you anything - all I did was bring up the fact that WE (as a collective entity) won the award. It's like a team that wins the Super Bowl, it's a TEAM win, but all the individual members can (rightfully) call themselves Super Bowl champions. This isn't me ME giving YOU an award, just more along the lines of bringing to your attention "Hey, look what somebody gave US." Vjmlhds (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Please just refrain from posting award messages on my talk, whether from you or not (barnstars excluded). If you're not sure in the future, just don't post it and you're good. Please respect my request. Levdr1lp / talk 14:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

OK - your wish is my command, but as I said, my intent was merely to tell you about a collective award that we had a part in. User:Vjmlhds (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: It should be thoroughly clear by now that I have no interest in your awards or award-related posts (barnstars aside). I sincerely hope this is the last time we have to discuss this matter. Levdr1lp / talk 14:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

was being specific

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

Bob & Tom

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

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

ArbCom elections are now open!

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

Auld Lang Syne (2016)

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