User talk:Beach drifter/Archive 3

AN/I comment

I'm not sure hat you mean here. What is he endorsing? Could you possibly clarify your comment a bit? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Sorry, I thought about detailing that comment a bit more. EdJohnston said "it creates awkwardness if we are endorsing the actions of an editor....." and I though that was some strange logic, that by not acting, we are endorsing the anons edits. Beach drifter (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Tim Jones- Film Composer

Hello Beach drifter. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Tim Jones- Film Composer, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

la

Please

This is a very famous actress

Must have a page in Wikipedia--Hgk,p (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Hello, Beach drifter. You have new messages at Coldplay Expert's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

help answer

Answered on my talk page. Malke 2010 04:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tosh.0

Undid revision 348945049 by Ninjawarriordex (talk)all very interesting but recent, need third part sources for long term effect)

So are you saying, it needs more than the commentary from the actual host of the show, on the show's website, ran by comedy central for a more long term effect, because there are articles with youtube links, links that could become invalid at anytime if someone decides to come along and post copyrights against them.

Sacred Heart

Regarding the Academy of the Sacred Heart Page - I see that you keep undoing our changes. Since we are new to editing on Wikipedia, can you tell us why specifically our changes are getting rejected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathleete (talk • contribs) 01:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning Template reply

Replied at my talk page.--Happysomeone (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

warning

Hi, thanks for the comment about the warning template by Happysomeone. It's just harassment over the Keli Carender edit I made back around March 3rd or so. He's enraged that the quote mentions that Seattle is the bluest of blue cities, etc. You're right, giving me a warning template was inappropriate. And I'm not a disruptive editor, etc. In fact, just the opposite. Thanks. Malke 2010 05:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Evils of Censorship

A logical argument is not a soapbox. Please cease and desist your hegemonic attacks. For those who are unaware the caliber of knowledge that can be posted to Wikipedia is controlled by several factors. Most of them make perfect sense and mirror academic standards, such as the need to verify source material and validate the truthfulness of information it collects. While some provide only window dressing for the attempt to obscure the words of the minority.

Entire pages of work will be erased because the information provided is not "prolific" enough to be included, not "important" enough to grace the Servers of Wikipedia. So-called trivial information will be summarily deleted without even a by your leave. In essence Truth will be deleted and ignored because the higher wikipedian powers will deign that these or those particular truths are not worthy of being recorded. . .they seem to believe some truths matter to too few people to be worth annotating to the record books.

I don't know about you . . .but I believe that all truths are worthy of being recorded. From the great to the small to the truths within us all . . .everything is worthy of inclusion. In fact wasn't that the point of the wikipedian process in the first place. But, like so many freedom fighters before them, the libertine wikipedians eventually gave in to the fascist policies of their enemies and began censoring their posts.

Listen to me, AS SOON AS WIKIPEDIA BECAME A BUSINESS INTEREST HEGEMONY CREEPED INTO THEIR PEER REVIEW PROCESS.

Now people are being told, after treatises of their work has already been deleted, that they have nothing to contribute . . .that their voices are not worthy of being told. Even though they are able to verify their information as factually true and not conjecture, even though their information matters in a great or small way to a small or large subset of our society. Even though they are right, they are denied.

Oh the arrogance of such people. We have a word for them in my field. Ethnocentrists. They believe that they have the capacity to judge the right and wrongness of the world or knowledge, even if they have no experience with what they are judging. They believe that their superior intellect is capable of filtering out which information is not important to you. Instead of letting the people decide which information they want to view; they take the decision away from you. They make it for you . . .and the worst part is they will say it is for your own good.

Remember fascism always begins with the introduction of policies or laws that are supposed to "better control people for their own good and the greater good of all". This is no less than evil.

My mother and father and hopefully yours as well had our best interests at heart. They knew us and in a perfect world, helped us to make the correct decisions. Neither the government or Wikipedia are our parents . . .and they have NO right to act like they are.

It is up to us to judge whether any facts are relevant in our lives or not, not the 'editors' of wikipedia. Let them judge whether or not something is true, and let us judge whether of not it is relevant... |--Chinatown670 (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR. Beach drifter (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC) I like the sound of 'hedgemonic' tho. Beach drifter (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even know what that means?? . . .oh and you spelled it wrong. --Chinatown670 (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, noticed it a while ago, right when I wrote it actually, just didn't care to fix it. Beach drifter (talk) 06:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Bennett, etc.

Could you report those of his edits on March 1, 1991, 1994, and Matt Bennett which may violate WP:3RR. I've got to get to work on some real-world benefit applications. I gave him the 3RR warning, which he responded to, so we can assume he's aware of it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and November 18. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was trying to play nice with him and was hoping he would come around, but it seems unlikely. I'm going to give him another few minutes to see if he attempts some productive communication with us before going to the 3rr board. Beach drifter (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just reverting Arthur's vandalising. Barneystimpleton (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

uh-huh. Beach drifter (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cats

I'm going to torture your cats. 86.179.224.42 (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think she could take you. Beach drifter (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must disagree, but I suppose there is only one way to find out. Perhaps we could rearrange a suitable time for me to come and slaughter your cat? I'm free all next week... 86.180.144.136 (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can come over, if you can get past the guard dogs first. Beach drifter (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in hurting the dog, I only want to mutilate your cat. 86.180.144.136 (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, he is quite terrfying. Beach drifter (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly is, but I'll have to take the risk. I should probably also point out I'm something like that Horse-Whisperer guy, except I can do it with dogs. So I can probably talk the dog into assisting with the torture. Mind you, for the avoidance of doubt, I muse point out I am not a furry, who d3eserve things even worse that what I am going to do to your cat. 86.180.144.136 (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then

I've been vandalising Wikpedia for over five years now. And you have the best sense of humour of any "target" since a man in black. Therefore, rest assured all your pets are safe from me! 86.180.144.136 (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell the cat she can come out from under the bed. Does this mean the you are or are not Hamish Ross and How'd you do that? Beach drifter (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Email me \/ 86.180.144.136 (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless

I have no intention of ceasing to vandalise wikipedia and harrass other editors, of course. Feel free to email me: wikifreedomfighter@gmail.com in confidence. There's a lot I can show you about wikipedia you may not be aware of. 86.180.144.136 (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, how tempting. Trying to pull me to the dark side are you? Beach drifter (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Cramer

Jim has stated, in the first person, on recorded television, numerous times over several years, that he is in his 60s. The sources to the contrary are poor and easily manipulated. Further, one defense of him bein in his 50s is that he's making a joke which as an acknowledgment of his statements about being in his 60s along with a failure by the posters to offer any citation that it is indeed a joke. It seems as if the wrong "facts" are being taken without question when obvious facts are being denied. Previously, some posters seemed to be ok with a dual date for his birthday providing sources for both. Since that has been taken down, it seems as if the one verified numerous times by the individual in question, on recorded television for millions to watch, should be the one that stands over a citation from Benzinga as if anyone has ever heard of Benzinga. Or a Myspace page which can be changed at will. Or a single citation to a secondary source that could also be easily manipulated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.75.220 (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains that you are removing a cited date that has consensus, to an uncited one with no consensus. Please read the talk page and comment there. Beach drifter (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sword of Truth.

Can you not read? Go ahead quote to me, quote to me where I said the rumored book was an April Fools joke. You can't I only said it was a possibility because the video was released on the main site.

"While this very well may be an April Fools joke" is that good enough? Beach drifter (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If its an April Fools joke why is it still up? Why hasn't it been confirmed as a Hoax? Because it could very well be real. I am not a vandal and I do whatever I can to contribute to the articles I edit. Truth be told I am also most likely a more devoted fan to the books than most people here. I would not vandalize the article. Theres also no need to delete that entry just yet because it could be legit. Seekeroftruth469 (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made it clear all you needed to do was provide a source, problem solved. Beach drifter (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright...I'm sorry...the possibility of a 12th book is still really exciting.Seekeroftruth469 (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]