User talk:Levdr1lp/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Status update: January 2017

To anyone reading this- I last posted an update in October. I had hoped to return to editing on a regular basis last month (Dec. '16), but that obviously did not happen. I now hope to return to editing w/ some regularity next month (Feb. '17). I'll try to edit if/when I can until then. Levdr1lp / talk 07:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Baltimore Ravens

Hello Levdr1lp (talk), I just thought I'd inform you that there's no reason whatsoever to include other teams in the rivalry section of the Baltimore Ravens template. The reason I state this is because the only teams that should be included are articles linking to full articles. Therefore, the only team that should be listed in this section is the Pittsburgh Steelers, since the only rivalry article linking the Ravens and Steelers is Ravens–Steelers rivalry. Here's the diff for reference. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Charlesaaronthompson- Did you even read my edit summary? I reverted your edit because you appeared to assert ownership of the template with the hidden text you added ("Please DO NOT add any other teams to..."). Please consider reviewing WP:HIDDEN before adding a similar message in the future. Levdr1lp / talk 01:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Background remove request

Hi, Levdr1lp. In the past, you removed the backgrounds of infobox images, such as the ones in Superman and Lois Lane. I'm thankful for your help in these cases. If you have the time, can you remove the background of this Wonder Woman image so that only the character is left? The image is currently being used in the Wonder Woman infobox. Thanks for your time. DrRC (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

DrRC- I don't think so. The resolution is too low and the background is too complex. Maybe try the Graphics Lab and see if someone there can help. Levdr1lp / talk 08:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I see, thanks for getting back to me. DrRC (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Admin request

Prior to April 19, 2011, I edited as User:Levdr1. I lost my password for that account. I subsequently created this account as a replacement: originally Levdr1lostpassword, and later changed to User:Levdr1lp. Per the "Compromised accounts" bullet point at WP:VALIDALT, I'm seeking an administrator to please permanently block the old account for security reasons. Just to be clear, this is a request to block User:Levdr1 (no "-lostpassword" or "-lp" at the end). I realize it's been nearly six years since I lost access to that first account, and maybe I should've made this request sooner, but I would still greatly appreciate it even now. Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 06:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Not an unreasonable request.  Done. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Yunshui- Thanks! Levdr1lp / talk 10:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Seeking feedback

Acroterion, Cyphoidbomb, NeilN, Orangemike, Yamla, LM2000, WarMachineWildThing, TheGracefulSlick, Dane--

Hello all. I've been working on a possible case for submission at SPI. Given your relative familiarity with the situation (or in the case of Dane, a possibly related SPI case), please let me know what you think, especially if there isn't sufficient behavioral evidence:

• User:Levdr1lp/Draft SPI case

Thanks. (Please note that I've also sought input at the SPI talk page.) Levdr1lp / talk 10:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what else to say but you've made very vaild points. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 10:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

After looking at the IPs you listed and what and how they edited after arguments I've had with ***** I'd have to say those are 90% positive. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 11:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

WarMachineWildThing- Any thoughts on the registered users? Levdr1lp / talk 11:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

From my stand point and going back over everything, if it's not him I'll be shocked. I already have suspicions he has another but I'm only 40% on that. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 11:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

This is definitely a very well evidenced, well reasoned SPI. After evaluating the evidence as presented, I would say this is undeniably them. I would post this under the existing StylesClash18 SPI as this is almost certainly one of the same masters. Great job! -- Dane ^talk 11:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Dane- Thanks! Will do. Levdr1lp / talk 11:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

WarMachineWildThing, Dane- Based on your feedback, I'll take this to SPI. If you don't mind, however, I'm going to hold back until later today to see what the admins have to say. Levdr1lp / talk 12:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

You've presented more than sufficient behavioral evidence for admins to consider. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there's enough here to warrant closer inspection. The IPs seem to match up perfectly and I've read similar posts from Vjm like the one Seth made to Chris too many times to count.LM2000 (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Compelling indeed. The odd timing of SA's appearance[1] after six months of inactivity a scant 2 hours after V was blocked[2] is very curious and should be highlighted, if it isn't already. I do note that SA hasn't edited since early March, and I expect V would cop to this, but then downplay it. "Yeah, I socked, but only a little bit while we were still working out the terms of my block..." Certainly is enough to have a CU look at it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Comparatively, I didn't have a lot of experience with Vjm outside the ANI that decided on the 3-month ban but, based on the behavior leading to that discussion and the discussion itself, I think you have an overwhelming case that needs to be presented. I have a bad feeling that was not his only sleeper account if it's over two years old.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

In one of the edits listed in Levdr1lp's case draft, it seemed like V was admitting that he had over 10 years of experience with two names. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb- He first disclosed an old account in 2013, and he still notes it on his user page. I wasn't sure if it was relevant. Levdr1lp / talk 17:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Update -- Thanks for the feedback, everyone. Per Dane's suggestion, I have reopened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/StylesClash18 and added my observations there. Levdr1lp / talk 14:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm honestly shocked. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 21:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Final update -- A clerk endorsed a CheckUser, noting that the "evidence is compelling". However, the CheckUser determined that all of the suspected registered users are unrelated, w/ the exception of SA99 who is "unlikely" to the sockmaster. A new sock who had not been suspected previously was confirmed, though. Levdr1lp / talk 03:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

WAKS/radio market

I definitely know WAKS serves the Cleveland market, but it is licensed to Akron, the primary city of it's own market. While it serves the Cleveland market, I've been told plenty of times that it's part of the Akron market but serves the Cleveland market. Even it's callsign imdicates this. W A (Akron) KS (Kiss). What else would the A stand for? Other stations that are in this same situation (WCTK, WMXB, WPKQ, WKBE, WKTU, WYUL, WLYK, XHTO, XHMIX, WHOM, WMYI, etc.) are placed in the market they serve along with the market in which their COL falls in. Can you please help clear this up? 146.115.137.44 (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

146.115.137.44- Community of license is generally less important than the primary market for a given radio station. For one thing, the COL is almost always part of the station's primary market and not the other way around. That's not to say the COL should be ignored; preferably, it should be noted in the infobox, the lead, and -- as the lead is a summary of the article body -- the body. The localized navboxes in the external links section, however, are nominally intended to group radio stations by local markets, not COLs. On Wikipedia, "market" is generally based on those regional groupings defined by Nielsen Audio (formerly Arbitron), and I don't see that changing anytime soon. We have to draw the line somewhere, and given the endlessly varied geography of broadcast AM & FM signal patterns, the clearest and most consistent option is to limit each article to one local market -- the primary market. Arguing "but this other article does it the way I like" is not a good reason to change the existing generally agreed upon practice. Moreover, in this specific case, it would likely encourage template creep. Levdr1lp / talk 22:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

For some reason, I thought that the COL defined the market the station is in. I know WAKS serves Cleveland, but it's licensed to Akron, so it's also part of that market, no? TomG2002 (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

TomG2002- The FCC does not dictate which market a licensed station must serve (primarily or otherwise), only that the station's COL is covered. While the Akron market is indeed covered by WAKS, that is because Akron itself is the COL-- the city is obviously located at the center of the Akron radio market. But the station promotes itself first and foremost as a Cleveland market station. WAKS is listed as a Cleveland station by Nielsen Audio and by radio airplay charts, not an Akron station. Levdr1lp / talk 21:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Joe Tait "Retired Number"

right|250px

Regarding Joe Tait, his microphone should be added. I provided this pic of the Lakers retired numbers to show they did the same thing for Chick Hearn when he hung his mic up, and it's become sort of an NBA-wide thing for announcers. No need to quibble about terminology, as it's the same basic idea. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Vjmlhds- Please tell me how this isn't OR. Levdr1lp / talk 22:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

OK...Here's an article detailing how 7 different teams have retired microphones of their longtime announcers This shows that retiring the mic to honor announcers has become a league wide trend. In fact, as you study the list, you'll see that many of these announcers have had this done for them prior to Joe Tait, meaning that this has actually been a long standing practice, and not just something unique to Tait. So no OR, just something that has followed what has turned out to be a years long NBA tradition. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Vjmlhds- I still don't see how the fact various broadcasters have been honored by their respective teams has anything to do with retired players' jersey numbers (no sources using the term "retired number" to refer to these various honors, hence the OR). In the case of Tait, I don't mind noting the honor in writing in the retired numbers section of the article-- Tait's banner hangs alongside the retired number banners. But treating the the honorary banner like a retired jersey number is potentially confusing (was Tait a player? why doesn't he have a number?), as well as fancruft-y. This isn't a fansite. It's meant to an encyclopedic overview of the Cavaliers team. Obviously Tait belongs in the article given his long tenure and lasting impact in the minds of Cavs fans. We simply disagree on how to characterize this particular detail. Levdr1lp / talk 03:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

0RR

When I was originally blocked on March 5, the 0RR clause was in play, and then the block got extended on April 25, and all that went out the window. I paid my debt to Wiki-society just as I was instructed to do, and when I was unblocked, the administrator did so without adding any clauses or restrictions.

Please don't conflate things - I sat out 90 days, and I was brought back with no qualifiers, so please don't try to look for trouble when none existed, and content-wise, there was no reason for you to undo my edits...I redid the lede in the Donald Trump Jr. article in a way where it wouldn't have an issue with WP:NPOV...isn't that what an editor is supposed to do - try to fix something when there is an issue (which is why the template was put in place to start with)?

So please - I'm not looking to lock horns again, so please don't be an agitator.

Thank you.

Vjmlhds (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Vjmlhds- If I were you, I'd think twice before casually accusing another editor of being an "agitator". That said, I sincerely hope you make the most of this "final chance" presented to you. I look forward to working with you in a civil and constructive manner if/when our efforts overlap. Welcome back. Levdr1lp / talk 22:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I was not aware that 0RR was in effect. As I said before, when I was reinstated by Yunshui, no mention was made of any conditions, so I thought there were no strings attached, Yamla has since cleared things up, so I now know where I stand, 0RR is in effect until Oct 25, and the civility clause is in effect until July 25 of next year. OK, now that all those bases are covered, I'll abide by those rules. As I said before, I'm not looking to lock horns, and what we had was a simple case of getting signals crossed because no one knew what the boundaries were. Now we do, so we can proceed (hopefully peacefully). Vjmlhds (talk) 23:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Vjmlhds- I don't blame you for reverting before the block admin reminded you of your editing restrictions (per community consensus). I blame you for calling me an "agitator". I suggest you refrain from name calling. Levdr1lp / talk 00:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Let me reword that so there's no misunderstanding. I'm not looking to do battle with you, so please don't pick a fight with me...that was my point, poor choice of words on my part. I'm going to be civil with you, all I want out of you is reciprocation. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Vjmlhds- I'm not "picking a fight." You called me an "agitator", and I'm suggesting you stop. Levdr1lp / talk 00:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Halloween

@Levdr1lp: In regard to your recent edit of Halloween: your edit summary says "slight reword to better reflect sources". After reading the change, and then rereading it, I think it does two things, first, it subtly shifts the meaning of the paragraph, and secondly, it obfuscates rather then clarifies. I would ask you to take another look at it. If you disagree, please start a discussion on the Halloween talk page (and perhaps revert your change in the meantime). FYI, the Halloween page has a somewhat large group of very passionate editors, and your change is likely to draw controversy. Oddjob84 (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Oddjob84- You don't need to ping me on my own talk page-- I'm notified regardless. As for my edit, I'm well aware of the subtle change it created. That was intentional: it seems there may be one or two pro-religious editors attempting to emphasize their own POVs regarding the subject's origins. I read through the most recent discussion on the article's talk page, and I don't see how any of my changes conflict with the (lack of) consensus there. I also meant what I said in my edit summary. The wording better reflects the coverage found in available sources. And I honestly have no idea what you mean by "obfuscates". Care to clarify yourself on your own concern? Levdr1lp / talk 20:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I know how a ping and a talk page work. I wanted to get your attention sooner than later. There are at least three pro-religious editors who stake out the page and jealously guard their POV. If you read the discussion more closely, you will note that I am not one of them. See this as well: User talk:Oddjob84#Halloween. I was trying to forestall (until after Halloween) what is likely going to become a nasty RfC. If you are determined to start it now, I wish you luck and will help when I can. Just now I am busy patrolling 21 other Halloween articles until November 1. FYI Halloween is the busiest of the 22, at 218,000 page views to date. Oddjob84 (talk) 01:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)