User talk:Beach drifter

Hello, I deleted the material on my page Niaih (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what the hell, dude? don't get rid of my article please. thanks buddy. -plasmaloverpjw103

Orashmatash

You have started to actually PICK ON ME! LEAVE ME ALONE! Also, you are not an administrator, so you have no right to be deleting articles, or diciplining other users. Orashmatash (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By other users, I meant everyone. You are just annoying them! You are speaking to all of us as if you have some sort of authority over us! Well you don't. Orashmatash (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the intrusion, but you should realize that following policy has nothing personally to do with you Orashmatash, and this is what Beach Drifter was doing. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

I have reported you (Beach drifter) to a Bureucrat. I hope that (s)he will put a stop to your somewhat childish behaviour, because you are just a cyberbully. Orashmatash (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, listen. If you do not BACK OFF and budge out of my life, (Beach drifter) I will take this to the AN/I, because this has gone too far. Orashmatash (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been constantly trying to communicate with you on your talk page, where you refuse to talk. Why is it you are so quick to come here and yell yet refuse to have anything on your talk page?Beach drifter (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nukes

Why has the Wolven Ancestry article been tagged for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaOkami (talk • contribs) 18:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:BAND. See if you can get that band to fit the criteria. Beach drifter (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're one of the more prominent acts in the Sudbury, Ontario black metal scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaOkami (talk • contribs) 18:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be easy to find sources for them, right? Beach drifter (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Florini and Anthony Shorrocks

Dear Beach drifter,

You have added some tags to my two new articles - you have questioned both of them in terms of notability and that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful".

Both seem to me notable academics, one the former head of the UNs WIDER the other Director of the Centre on Asia and Globalisation at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. There is citing from reliable institutions for this. I cannot see what is contentious in the articles. Could you clarify about what you find contentious? Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Hello. The part of the tag about "contentious material etc etc....." is just standard wp:BLP stuff and not meant to be specific to the articles I tagged. Wikipedia policy is fairly strict about content related to living people, but generally more to prevent rumors, gossip, disparaging comments, etc. In no way do your articles have any of those problems. I added the tags primarily because neither article has any sources that show third party coverage of the notability of the subjects. I have no doubt the subjects are notable, but added the tags to encourage editors to add new sources, such as newspaper, magazine, or journal articles that mention, or hopefully even are about, the subjects. The sources from the insititutions themselves are fine but they are not third party reliable sources, which is what really proves their notability. See wp:rs wp:bio and wp:prof for more information. Beach drifter (talk) 01:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi my understanding is that the info is from respectable institutions UN and Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and is not self-published by the individuals so count as a reliable sources. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I completely agree that they are reliable sources, but they are not third party sources. Third party sources, those totally independent of the subject, are terrific for establishing that the subjects have received attention on a high level, to easily satisfy and notability guidelines. Beach drifter (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beach Ultimate

The addition I added to Ultimate's Wikipedia page was sourced. With that in mind I will re-upload albeit with word changes per your suggestion. Thank you for your assistance.Mimiken (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and I'm sorry but I reverted your edit again. The source is a blog, it is not reliable. There is nothing special about this pick up beach game, hundreds of similar pick up games have been occurring for many many years as well. The blog does not even state specifically that the beach ultimate played there was started by this Bob, and the part about being naked is clearly a joke, do you think they would have their kids out there otherwise? If you can find some sources that prove that this was the first beach ultimate ever played or something like that, then please feel free to add the content. Beach drifter (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cramer

Yeah, hi! How stupid. I'm not sure how I stumbled onto Cramer's page, nor why it was on my watchlist (which currently weighs in with over 3,000 pages), but there you have it, I noticed some silly arguments, so I weighed in. Anyway, it seems pretty high profile, and at the moment, the talk page, besides the anon and you, seems quiet (relatively). Having said that, should it spill into the article, then I'll happily start protecting. I've given the (current) IP a final warning and I'll be keeping tabs on the page. I'll also remove the personal attacks myself. Let's see how it goes. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Rambling Man, and nice to meet you. Beach drifter (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, the feeling's mutual. I would also recommend you actually "remove" Cramer from your watchlist. You wouldn't believe how much a relief it'd be if you didn't worry so much about these things. I've been there many times myself. I know how difficult it can be to just "leave it" but hey, why not. Go do something different like write some stubs or patrol some new pages. You probably know all this, so I won't go on. Feel free to ping me anytime you encounter anything similar. My best to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:PCHS-NJROTC

You might want to consider starting a thread about him at AN/I. He's been warned before about causing drama and this sockpuppet investigation would qualify as such. 173.5.41.63 (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beach drifter is engaging in disruptive behavior, the drama comes in when he won't stop and let the clerks decide. If you are a new user, how would you know anything about this? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 23:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't live here, maybe try at his talk page...Beach drifter (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, just thought I'd add, how would starting an AN/I help anything? It'd just create more drama. Why not let the admins decide for once. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 23:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point. People are tired of you doing stuff like this, and some of them want you censured or topic banned or I don't know what. But some of us just can't help but to push your buttons. Beach drifter (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Keegscee

Sorry about that. The thread was started by a troll. WP:RBI. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 23:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, but, I thought I was a troll. Must be a different subspecies or something. Beach drifter (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

Hello Beach drifter, User:PCHS-NJROTC has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Note: This was left by a user, now blocked, impersonating PCHS-NJROTC. But there's no harm in a smile so leaving it here unless you want to remove it :) Peter 22:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

University of North Carolina at Wilmington

Hello. In case you're wondering: WP:CUTPASTE. Moving keeps the history intact you see. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to move, but I think due to the redirects it wouldn't let me, not sure. I wasn't happy with the way I was going about it but couldn't get a real move to work. Beach drifter (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's the reason. I used my admin powerz to delete the redirects. You can find admins to do it for you at WP:RM, or use the {{db-move}} template. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks! Beach drifter (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digital FortressHi. Regarding your edit to Digital Fortress, please provide a source for that title if you wish to include it. Even if you do, that does not mean that the other one is wrong, as it's possible that the books is published under more than one title in that language. In any event, the source in the article (which I notice no one changing or challenging) is to Brown's site, which not only supports the title Bod klamu, but provides an image of that edition's book cover, which shows that title explicitly. It does not support the title Digitálna pevnosť, and even the article on the Slovak Wikipedia contains no links to support that. Please comply with WP:RS/WP:CS/WP:V, etc. if you change material in an article. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]Common sense tells us that if the title translates to Deception Point, it is the title of that novel, and that if the title translates to Digital Fortress, it is the title to that one. It's unfortunate that their is a tiny error on the Dan Brown site but the correct titles here are very obvious and not worth telling me to comply with policy over. Beach drifter (talk) 04:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]RocketballHi, I did not originally contribute the Rocket Ball section, but it became apparent when looking at the article history that constantly deleting the section resulted in a reposting. The point of my edit was to show that the game itself was not notable, but that the broad community of unique variations was notable. I do not think the section should appear either, but when it is continually re posted, the best response (in the interim at least) was a bit of a compromise, where the less-notable rocketball is used as an example of a notable versatility and relative ease in creating a new type of game in the tradition of Ultimate. That way the Rocketball renegades can be appeased, while maintaining the integrity of the article by providing an accurate description and more useful information than simply stating how and from where the game exists. It is unsourced, being that the structure of the article presents evidence that in turn supports logically the premises that draw to the conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.39.252 (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]I'm not interested in appeasing anyone. It just doesn't belong in the ultimate article. Beach drifter (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]A Song of Ice and FireHi Beach drifter, Just a quick question. Why did you remove the section about Music in the article "A Song of Ice and Fire"? Was it less important than the TV series? I will give you 2 days to respond and after that I will undo your revision. Best regards, Trelos physikos (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Hello. I removed it because it not a part of the novels. It is also not sourced. In my opinion while it is awesome that they wrote songs about the books, the information does not fit into an article thats main purpose is to describes the places and events of a fictional work. Maybe put a message on the article talk page and see what others think. I'm not totally against including the statement but I don't think having a music section with one sentence really is needed. Beach drifter (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] OK, fair enough that a whole section is maybe too much. It could probably fit in as a subsection into the Adaptation or Franchise categories. I will follow your advice and make a post in the talk section. By the way, regarding if it was sourced or not, the parts about the card games (three first paragraphs in the franchise section) do not have a single reference but redirect to Wikipedia pages (as I had done). I didn't see you complain or edit the article about that! Trelos physikos (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]A common argument on wikipedia is to complain that other things are also not inline with wikipedia policies. This unfortunately does not add anything to your argument. Beach drifter (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] I didn't say it adds anything to my argument! Actually, I have followed you advice and posted on the talk page. What does that tell you? However, I am just stating the obvious, ie your justification "not a part of the novels/not sourced" was lame and that you should have also edited the whole article with that in mind and not discriminate. Anyway, thanks for the advice. Take care. Trelos physikos (talk) 08:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure why you feel the need to tell me how I should edit. Maybe I think the other sections you mentioned are "lame" too. I wasn't reviewing the entire article, just recent changes. Beach drifter (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]Animal mummyOK I'll try. Beserks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]Conveyor beltCould you go back and rework your cleanup of Conveyor belt? It looks like you rushed the cleanup and made numerous grammatical errors, to the point where I'm having difficulty figuring out the intended meaning. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Hi, sorry, I was trying to minimize the damage done by the previous edits, more such confusing language can be seen here. I nearly wiped out the entire section, but this type of conveyor does seem like it is different enough to have its own section. I really know nothing about conveyor belts and so was just trying to remove the worst of the text. I'll look at it some more. Beach drifter (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Not a problem. I hadn't removed the section before, just tagged it because of the unsourced content seemed highly promotional, especially given the coi of the editor involved. --Ronz (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks! Until someone offers sources, I think the brief mention that you left is a good solution. --Ronz (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]Wolven AncestryDeprodding of Wolven AncestryI have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Wolven Ancestry, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! VERTott 11:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] I removed the proposed deletion because AlphaOkami had done so before. VERTott 06:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] I replaced the tag because of this edit, but your right, an afd is what should of been done. Beach drifter (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]User:OrashmatashYou mentioned that this user had an existing account that was blocked. Which account would that be? Nakon 21:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]Hello, sorry was out for a while. You can see in this diff that Orash previously used apparently both of those accounts, the first one being indefed for pretty minor stuff. Seems to be attempting to be productive now under his new name. Beach drifter (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]Missing the pointYou are right in the fact that the focus shouldn't be on one night, but that isn't the point of the addition. The point of my addition is the movie itself. In a previous blurb, it was mentioned that work was being done on the movie in 2008, albeit under a slightly different name. My addition expands on that blurb, verifying that the movie finally got a screening, it was important enough for Corey Feldman to attend and the premiere was in a location that one would not necessarily associate a movie premiere to be held. These facts make the addition noteworthy. Your statement that no one cares about one night is your opinion, and opinion is something that does not need to be used as a criteria for removing content. It is my opinion that some of the other information on the page isn't notable enough for inclusion, but that doesn't mean that it is not notable for others. I wouldn't delete any information that I don't find notable. I would only delete information if it is untrue or wildly opinionated. I have taken my argument to the talk page, but I seriously doubt it will do any good. Most of the individuals I have encountered over this simple sentence addition appear hostile and unwilling to budge from their stance. That, in itself, is a sad comment on the people who take the time to edit Wikipedia. Maybe a miracle will happen. Maybe not. I have already spent too much time defending my actions from people I have never and will never meet. It seems silly in the grand scheme of things.