User talk:Centerone

Click on "show" on the right of the orange bar to open contents.

Hello Centerone! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 6 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Leo Sewell - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop restoring the link. As per WP:EL, Wikipedia is not a directory service, and we do not list links simply because they exist - no matter who the owner is. If you feel strongly that the link should be mentioned, then take it up on the talk page. However, repeatedly restoring it is not appropriate. Thank you in advance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop continuously deleting the link. It has already been accepted and discussed on the talk page. In addition, it is as close to an 'official' page (detailing all the series) as we are going to get at this time. Centerone (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

re My bad! I should've done more research.. "fluffy toy" just seemed really silly that's all.. :) but I guess that's just part of his character? Anyway, I think he's quite entertaining.. Die Antwoord is hilarious! -- œ^™ 12:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Matt Smith (actor). Thank you. magnius (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Centerone, please see the talk page of the WCAU article regarding your re-addition of unreferenced BLP list material. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I am seeking a definition of the Northwood neighborhood, at Talk:Northwood, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Please comment if you can. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not terribly familiar with Northwood. I do know that they have had a lot of internal political problems with members of the Northwood Civic Association (basically the ex director vs. everybody else.) but that's about all I know. Centerone (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jeff Mach, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Bull. The tag said that if someone objected to it, it could be removed. Centerone (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The prod tag could be removed. The notability and unreliable sources tags had not been resolved. Yworo (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Jeff? Yworo (talk) 08:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

No, but your name clearly starts with another J. Centerone (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Y? If it weren't for people like me, Wikipedia would be completely useless, full of advertising and stuff people just make up. There is never any reason to worry about AfDs. If the subject is notable, the article will be kept. If it's not, that's what we call a "reality check" on your knowledge of our notability requirements. Yworo (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Centerone. I have added some additional information on why I believe the page move is justified. As he contacted me directly about this matter because of the work I did at the Leon Botha BLP (thanks for your work there also), I wonder if you'd be persuaded if he contacted you directly as well? I did not have an opinion previously, but he made a compelling case to me. Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought I responded to this previously, but apparently it didn't go through. I wouldn't mind if he contacted me directly, as I think all of his work is brilliant. That being said, while I understand some of the reasons why he might want to be known as Ninja, or any other chosen name, I doubt he would have a really compelling argument for me. Perhaps if Ninja wasn't such a characterization and didn't seem so dismissive of his former work he might, but that is not how he has chosen to play this incarnation. I suppose part of it would depend upon how willing he is, in private, to step out of character and lay out his reasoning. However, I am not here to debate him or disagree with his artistic choices; I respect them. However, I also respect and value his former projects equally, too. Centerone (talk) 06:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not up to you, you freaking idiot, to make commentary on your opinion of a Wikipedia editor's name. What do you think this is? Junior High School? 67.188.212.174 (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, bitter much? You come here to make one ridiculous statement about an edit of yours I reverted because it gets things wrong, and then you comment on something totally unrelated and totally misinterpret that, too! Oh, BTW, I was right in this case. I recommend a course in reading comprehension. Centerone (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who you are, or where you come from, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It deals with provable, citable, encylopedic facts. Not some fan cunt from a marketing department who wants to make an Internet splash.

I'm not being polite, because no politeness is due. You're a dishonest editor, and in a perfect world, you wouldn't be allowed air space for this kind of edit. 67.188.212.174 (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

For anybody wondering, this fine upstanding example of a gentleman is referring to the following edit which I reverted, which I even noted was a "good faith" edit, but got things wrong... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devo&diff=528697582&oldid=528695253 He then came and edited my revert, and commented in the comment box about the edit, "kiss off. all this shit you replaced is uncited marketing crap. Yes, I mean you." which I then reverted. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devo&diff=528995190&oldid=528986689 Centerone (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Some anonymous person is offended by the article on Mark B. Cohen, which you have defended in the past. Not only have the criticizing tags been reinstated, but a motion for speedy deletion has been filed. Please intervene to preserve a detailed article full of cited, well-documented facts. Ironically, just two days before this attempt for speedy deletion, a complainant removed material I had posted that he said was potentially negative to Mr. Cohen. Thanks for your help in this matter.

9User talk: Zulitz Zulitz, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks like someone else took care of this. Also, a speedy deletion is a joke and was clearly going to fail. Centerone (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello there. Citing a TV episode is fine; just use the {{Cite episode}} template. (eg. <ref>{{cite episode|title=Episode 4|series=Propaganda in the Attic|station=...etc}}</ref>) --McGeddon (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

That was an honest accident, I was improving the citation and there was an edit conflict, and I thought I erased it by mistake while I was editing. Please don't assume the worst of me. Ash Loomis (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, accepted. For the record, there *might* be a reliable source for calling them industrial, (although technically they are not Industrial music, one might call them proto-industrial but that is not an accepted genre, I believe there was a 70s era article somewhere that did that..) A blog posting by Richard Anderson however is not it. Centerone (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe back in their early years Devo referred to themselves as "industrial music for the 1980s" yet I can't find a source online to back this up, so unless I find a book that sources this or someone reliable posts it online, I'll leave the article be. Ash Loomis (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Not really. :( Using the sources cited on Wikipedia Ric's father was born in Poland. "sek" is a common suffix of Polish surnames, while occasionally found among Czech surnames. Perhaps it is a stretch.Hoops gza (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps we should start a discussion on Ric Ocasek's talk page?Hoops gza (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need a discussion, or rather, if one should exist, it should come from the person who is so insistent about this topic. My personal opinion is that I am inclined to believe him that Otcasek is a Czech surname, _but_ we still need a reference. I can believe that Ric's father was a Polish-born Czech, but of course that is not what the reference states. Of course, it's People Magazine, so it's not the best journalism in the world. Obviously the name may have meanings and origins in both Czech-countries and Poland considering they are European neighbors with long histories. I couldn't find the name in a list of Polish or Czech surnames.. but then again, I only checked one site on this. Since you added the category to the Ocasek disambiguation page I had simply assumed you had a bit more knowledge on this which is why I asked. Thanks. Centerone (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• You can see that in the early 1990s in Poland there were two people on record with the surname Ocasek - if you download the file at the bottom of this page: http://futrega.org/etc/nazwiska.html

Nothing for Otcasek. It could easily be a Czech surname, but the sources we have suggest Polish. I shall revert my edits on Ocasek for now.Hoops gza (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I shall show you a tweet from my mother (Paulina Porizkova) that might change you're mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rieding (talk • contribs) 03:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

As I stated repeatedly, "unless you are their personal genealogist, or did a dna test..." If you are genuinely the child of Ric Ocasek and Paulina Porizkova then there are policies on working on articles on people of close relation, and even if you were not genuinely their child, then there are still policies about how to go about editing wikipedia articles. A good place to start is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:An_article_about_yourself_isn%27t_necessarily_a_good_thing which can lead you to other articles such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources which both specifically apply in this case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research and then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons BTW, a tip - when commenting on a talk page, after you make a comment, type four tildes in a row.. you know this character: ~ That will sign your responses. Also, pay attention to the comments make in the edit history it may provide reasons people might revert or otherwise edit the pages or changes you have made. If you are genuinely Ric's child perhaps you can ask him "Dad, have you done any interviews and/or do you know of any published articles that talk about our family history?" Or if you are their child, I assume you might have access to scrapbooks of articles on him and The Cars, perhaps you can comb over them yourself. Also, as I believe I have stated in my edits, and said to others, I am inclined to believe you as it sounded like you knew what you are talking about, it is very feasible that Ric's dad was Czech, but that does not stop him from having been a Polish-born Czech, he can indeed be both. Also, it is highly likely that Otcasek is or could easily be of both Czech and Polish origins and usage as a surname, or even that over the many years, the family history is of mixed ethnic origin. Or even that the borders of the various Czech countries and Poland changed over time repeatedly. You still need a reliable source as one cannot go on surname alone which to date has been your only reasoning you stated in your edits. Centerone (talk) 06:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Centerone. Please do not add or re=add unsourced material to Wikipedia articles, as you did with this edit to Jeremy Glick. As you've already been contacted before multiple times regarding unsourced biographical information on previous occasions, please understand that with some exceptions, most material in Wikipedia articles, including biographical ones, needs to be supported by citations of reliable sources, in order to inform the reader of where that information comes from and not merely information you consider to be controversial. If you want to add a given piece of information, then please do the work necessary to source it. It would also be appreciated if you include the publication info for citations you add to articles, instead of obligating others to add it for you, as you did with the RugbyMag.com citation. For my part, I've added the publication info to the RugbyMag citation, so don't worry about that one. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, 1) I haven't "already been contacted multiple times" I was contact once by one guy who thought I added some bit to the Matt Smith article that was some sort of big deal and wasn't referenced, he was wrong. 2) I didn't add any info to the Jeremy Glick article (this time) I simply reverted the edit you did where you removed something totally uncontroversial and in the process removed something that had a citation. You missed it that time, and you missed the fact that I wasn't the one who added it in the first place, and even blatantly said so in my revert of your revert. 3) Jeremy Glick was 31 when he died. It's in pretty much every single reference that is out there. He almost certainly was born in 1970. Most of the references I have been able to find for the specific date of his birth are blogs, and a few other things although I'm not 100% that they'd qualify as the best RSes. Several of the references of the article are no longer at the urls listed, so I can't check them. Is the month and day of his birth really a matter of debate? Centerone (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, while it doesn't blatantly give the exact month and day, this reference from the article/interview: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3080114/ns/dateline_nbc-newsmakers/t/lyz-glicks-courage/#.UjJNqD-Tlmg which aired on August 20th, 2012 talks about "approaching milestones" and says "Jane Pauley: “Your wedding anniversary, Jeremy’s birthday. And then September 11.” They were Married August 31st. Then there is September 11th... Do I need to say more? Centerone (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

In response to your question at Talk:Ric Ocasek, I am posting here because I'm not sure if detailing family histories on the subject's page is appropriate or not. There were numerous corroborating public records found in my search so I'll try to just hit the highlights. The genealogy trace begins with the 1964 Cleveland City Directory which lists a Theodore and Mary P. Otcasek living in Maple Heights, Ohio and his employer as NASA. Theodore was born January 16, 1921 in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. His father was August Otcasek who emigrated from Anina, Hungary to Cleveland in 1906. August's parents were Joseph and Anna Otcasek; Anna arrived a few months later with the younger siblings. That Otcasek household is listed in 1910 Census where the father's place of birth is listed as "Hun. Bohemia" and their native tongue is listed as Bohemian. All indications are that the family were Czechs from what was then Austria-Hungary. Hope this helps. Piriczki (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I started a new talk section on Watkin Tudor Jones article about aliases fyi. MarcusParker (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, I opened a new Move Request you may be interested in (also on the talk page). MarcusParker (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Hoops gza. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Devo, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Hi, you added "Josh Hager" to this page, but did not provide a source. Hoops gza (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of keeping a record, I left in response on Hoops' talk page "How about next time just putting in a CITATION NEEDED tag before removing information or taking two seconds to look it up yourself? You just wasted your time, and that of a few editors. Devo's Official Twitter: https://twitter.com/DEVO/status/504677465105920000 Devo's official Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ClubDEVO/photos/a.10151035154444136.493846.187339984135/10152720587079136 Very first google search hit for Josh Hager Devo: http://www.vanyaland.com/2014/07/23/boy-u-want-garvy-js-josh-hager-replace-late-bob-casale-devo-live-band/" Centerone (talk) 07:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

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) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

D.Creish (talk) 09:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why this is here. Centerone (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

It's because of Bernie Sanders.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon has repeatedly been warned, and proven wrong yet he still reverts and removes this information. I am simply reverting the reverts and removals. One of the removals that I just reverted was apparent vandalism by a non-participating editor. Centerone (talk) 08:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it wasn't vandalism. Vandalism is when someone makes a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia, and that didn't happen here. Also, per WP:BLP, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. That means you have the burden of proof, instead of Guy Macon having it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders was raised Jewish, went through Jewish coming of age rituals, his entire behaviour is clearly influenced by his upbringing and belief system, he has publicly stated he is Jewish and proud of being Jewish, he has stated he is spiritual and believes in God, he has supported public displays, participated in ceremonies, his bio CLEARLY and most directly states that his religion is Judaism, etc. etc. etc. The only issue here is that Guy Macon is repeatedly and insistently misinterpreting what has been said, and puzzlingly refusing to listen to any of the numerous people have repeatedly tried to explain this to him, and SPECIFICALLY mischaracterizing the statements that have been made in the discussion. Bernie Sanders says he is "not particularly religious" this is _not_ the same as being an atheist, not being part of a religion, or not belonging to a religion. One does not need to be religious to be considered a Jew by religion; one does not need to be actively practicing; one does not need to attend or be a member of a specific Temple, Shul, or Synagogue; this is even in the texts both the Torah and the Talmud as previously referenced on the talk page. This is a simple, proven, referenced, reliably sourced _fact_. Centerone (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, you're right that Sanders has publicly stated he is Jewish and proud of being Jewish. Doesn't the infobox say right now that he's Jewish? Anyway, please try to relax, and be patient. The people on both sides of this are trying to do the right thing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Relax and be patient? Really? This has been going on obsessively and repeatedly for a long time. The idea that some editors think that they can tell you what someone else's religion is is highly absurd and patently offensive. Hey, is someone not religious enough for you?? Erase their identity and question their very being! People trying to do the right thing? Who? Certainly not Guy Macon who blatantly said people are outright lying, when specifically referencing me about his own statements. As to what the page says? No, it does not currently say that his religion is Jewish since a non-participating editor removed the _cited_ information then reverted my revert of his unexplained removal. Centerone (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a big debate here about it. But I will tell you that you'd sound a lot more reasonable if you could acknowledge that the word "Jewish" is in the infobox right now. And furthermore, if the infobox were to say nothing about being Jewish, then that would not be denying that Sanders is Jewish. Just like a person who says nothing is not thereby denying anything.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't accept "Ethnicity: Jewish" as being a reasonable compromise nor acceptable. THIS. IS. A. BIG. DEAL. If it was removed entirely from his infobox that would be an even huger deal as it would be an extremely stark comparison in relation to every other candidate and politician out there. As far as my tone here, please understand and remember that this is my PERSONAL PAGE where we are right now; I don't feel that I need to maintain the same relatively balanced attitude that I do on a typical article talk page or discussion. If you want to see more reasonable you can see the people repeatedly hitting their heads against the keyboard on the talk page again and again, on the no original research page, etc. Centerone (talk) 09:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

There are lots of people who don't have religion in their infoboxes. For example, Bob Kerry is agnostic, Jesse Ventura and Barney Frank are atheists, Elie Wiesel is nonreligious, and Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema is religiously unaffiliated; none of those people have any religion in their infoboxes. Ben Franklin rarely attended religious services, so religion isn't in his infobox either. Please don't look upon it as some sort of insult against Sanders if a lot of Wikipedia editors see Sanders as more like the people I just named, instead of like the other presidential candidates, as far as religion is concerned. Later.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow, did you really just use stated atheists and agnostics to argue this point? You. Really. Don't. Get. It. Centerone (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

3 out of 6.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

don't get sucked in. Only 1 out of 535 Members of Congress don't have Religion in their infobox right now. And I agree with you, ethnicity is disgusting to add.

I am currently banned from the page now because of Guy Macon and his followers owning the page and not allowing Bernie's Jewishness to be included, see here for my appeal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Sir_Joseph you should have seen the page before when MS and BS were here and they gave up too, it wasn't worth it dealing with certain editors. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Apparently religions should not be in the infobox of major political candidates for president, ask ^{drop me a line} why. Centerone (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that the recently closed RFC at the Sanders article automatically requires the same result at the Cruz, Clinton, and Trump articles, regardless of what reliable sources say, you're plainly mistaken.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Your edits look WP:POINTY to me. An RFC on one page does not necessarily set a precedent for other pages. As it stands, you're deleting relevant and well-sourced information for no apparent reason other than a dispute with another editor. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

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.

Firefly Music Festival

added links pointing to Pepper, M83, Civil Twilight, Wet and Gallant

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Because you have participated in a previous RFC on a closely related topic, I thought you might be interested in participating in this new RFC regarding Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Centerone, they deleted the pic of Watkin Tudor Jones because they said it was a copy write infringemnet, I'm not sure how that is possible. I took the picture from a video and then made it black and white. But before that happened someone tried to change the picture, I guess. I'm not actually sure how it all worked, but they took down a picture I made and someone tried to post a picture of their own. Anyways now there is NO picture on the Watkin Jones page.

I'm just wondering is it almost all admins/mods on wikipedia that have their heads up their ass's? I'm just wondering because besides you and Anna. they all seem pretty fucking dumb.

--Gene Zef2 (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Centerone, I got this pic I took, but wiki wont let me upload it. I can prove its mine by walking out my front door and taking a picture of my neighborhood. But alas they wont let me upload it.

https://i58.servimg.com/u/f58/19/44/03/05/da_mas10.jpg

Let me know your thoughts.

--Gene Zef2 (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Gene Zef2 This will similarly be reverted. It's about equivalent to the other snapshot in quality, but as you can see even less of Yolandi since the food blocks her face, the other one will be preferred. Centerone (talk) 05:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I will look for a much bette pic.

--Gene Zef2 (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Firefly Music Festival. Feel free to disagree, but there's a policy that WP:NOTADVERTISING is part of. Another policy, that WP:BURDEN is part of, states:

"All content must be verifiable. The burden of demonstrating verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."

So feel free to add one of those reliable sources that discusses the full roster that is not a WP:PRIMARY source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

This information is NOT UNSOURCED. It's EASILY verifiable. It's FACTUAL and NOT contentious, and you sir, are [censored]. It's also NOT ADVERTISING. It doesn't at all apply under that policy. Learn to read, you goit. Centerone (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Each use of non-free content is required to comply with all ten of the non-free content criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. One of these criteria is WP:NFCC#10c which says that a separate specific non-free use rationale is required for each use. File:Bobdobbs.png does not have such a rationale for Church of the SubGenius, so it can be removed per WP:NFCCE. If you feel non-free use is justified, then please provide a rationale for its use in the article. Be advised, however, that the rationale has to be valid and clearly show how all ten of the aforementioned criteria are satisfied. It's going to be pretty hard to do this in the artile about the church because of WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFCC#3 and item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. The image is already being used twice: once in J. R. "Bob" Dobbs and once in Free Party (UK). The use in the former is approapriate because it is being used as the primary means of identification in an article about the "character" itself, whereas it also seems OK in the article about the political party because the image seems to be the actual logo used by the party. In the church article, however, the image is being used in a sub-section of another which is not the primary topic of the article. This does not mean that the file cannot be used, but it does mean the that has to be a fairly strong contextual reason for doing so to satisfy NFCC#8. So, if you write a rationale for this particular use, make sure you clearly explain why the actual image needs to be seen in this article and how a link to the other pages mentioned is not sufficient. Cited critical commentary which shows that reliable sources have been discussing the image would also help clearly justify it's non-free use, but perhaps that is more appropriate for the article about Dobbs than it is for the article about the church.

Finally, it makes no difference whether permission was given by the right owner when it comes to non-free content. Permission only matters if image is claimed to have been released under a free license. If the rights holder wants to consent to that, then the file's licensing can be changed accordingly and it would no longer be subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. The rights holder, however, should be 100% sure that they want to do this because "freely licensed" with respect to Wikipedia means free for use by anyone anywhere in the world for any purpose (including commercial) and is something which cannot be revoked. If you have any more question about non-free content or image file licensing, feel free to ask them at WT:NFCC or WP:MCQ. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Centerone. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#COI with Watkin Tudor Jones (Die Antwood) supportes.
Message added 05:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User:Allensbacher (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC) Please do inform your partner Gene Zef2, as from your talk page we learn that you know each other.

You would be mistaken. I don't know Gene Zef anymore than I know you. If you had read the above talk page, any of the related page talk pages on the either the WTJ, DA, YV articles, or his talk page (although he has a history of blanking it), you would see that I am certainly not his partner in any way apart from trying to get him to learn and understand how to edit on wikipedia and how not to. Centerone (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

Black Banana has been proposed for deletion. I removed the tag and wrote on note on the talk page. Any way you could help find some sources for the article? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 06:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

That's going to be difficult considering how long ago it closed down. Do you have any access to either philly.com historical article archives, or other archives? I'm thinking Philadelphia's City Paper, Philadelphia Weekly, the Welcomat (I think it was what it was called before it became the philadelphia weekly..) would have articles or mentions. ALso scour these: basically searches of google books for black banana philadelphia, black banana philly, black banana club, etc. etc. I had included a bunch of properly formatted but shortened links here, but wikipedia won't et me because I used a url shortener because the links themselves were absurdly ridiculously long. Anyways when you do it a search it is helpful to use quotes around the phrase black banana. I don't really have much time to work on this article at the moment myself. I see A mention in Billboard magazine in 1981, and lots of other references that clearly are the black banana we're talking about, although I didn't bother to read any of the articles to see if the mentions are anything worth quoting or good references. Also, if you search books.google.com too with a similar search, you see a reference to a writing about when it was La Banana Noire. Also check the article history, it looks like a reference to that article was once a citation in the article, I'm not sure why it was deleted. Also, there used to be a virtual online black banana recreation, I thought it was linked here as an external link at least, not sure why it isn't anymore. Also, if you search Xavier's name you get some mentions including a 1979 article on the washington post's site. Centerone (talk) 05:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I think my edit summary made it clear that I was reverting a recent addition and also removing something that existed there before. I'm not removing the latter on the basis of the former. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Obviously most if not all of the editors before you made this change seem to disagree. If you think the change should be made, perhaps take it to the talk page for a discussion? My main issue is when someone removes something, and they use that time to also remove something else. From my perspective, it tends to hide multiple edits within others, and it makes it difficult to revert specific decisions without reverting other edits which may be good edits. What is it they say? Use a scalpel not a hatchet? I do recognize that you noted in your edit comment that you were removing the other stuff, but I don't agree with your reasoning and I generally find it suspicious when someone removes something which may be considered by some to reflect on a subject, especially such a contentious one, negatively. Centerone (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I can remove the content in a separate edit then. I have no objection to that and it was not my intention to obscure anything. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Once again, I would highly recommend that you take it to the talk page of the Donald Trump article first. Centerone (talk) 07:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

That's only necessary when someone restores what I've removed though. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

And... how hard is this to understand? I restored what you removed. Go take it to the talk page, and I don't mean MY talk page. You're unlikely to convince me, and certainly not by going back and forth with me here. Centerone (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Your edit summary made it clear that you restored it because it was combined with someone else I removed, not for disagreeing with the removal itself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

If I didn't had a problem with your edit for every reason, I wouldn't have reverted it. Notice I KEPT your removing the 261 characters but restored everything else. That was the only decision you made that I felt had a relatively reasonable justification. As above: "Obviously most if not all of the editors before you made this change seem to disagree." (Almost everybody, myself included) "My main issue " (that implies I have more than one issue) "I don't agree with your reasoning..." (how much more clear can I be?) "..and I generally find it suspicious" (uhm, hello!) This is now the fourth time I've told you to take it to the talk page of that article, and quit debating with me here. Centerone (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not debating with you here, but there isn't a discussion on the article talk page about this. You're so far the only editor to disagree. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

There isn't a discussion on the talk page about this Because YOU Haven't Started It Yet. Me:"I recommend you take this to the talk page." You: "That's only necessary when someone restores what I've removed though." BLATANTLY F'ING OBVIOUS POINT: I. Restored. What. You. Removed. EVERY OTHER EDITOR disagreed with you because clearly they had both added and left the long-standing text that was there that you removed; without checking the discussion archive I would bet there was even extensive discussions about the wording and what to include and not include in the past. When I reverted your edit, I was thanked by editors for making that revert. Is that enough for you? Now, get off my page and go take it to the talk page of THAT article if you want to remove that stuff again. If you don't, then don't. Centerone (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)