Beach drifter

Please see the article discussion page. I see no need for keeping my concerns about the article private.--Epischedda (talk) 07:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Please be more careful about your use of WP:TW in the future. You appear to have PRODded Driving song without even the most basic of internet searches. 67.100.125.128 (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I placed the prod tag on the article when it consisted of two vague sentences and no sources. Obviously, since you have improved it, I am happy for the tag to be removed. Beach drifter (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

(In response to your now-departed RD/S question): Russia makes similar claims (see Continental shelf of Russia#2001 extension claim); it's to do with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the natural prolongation principle of the continental shelf. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for pointing me to the right articles! Beach drifter (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Beach drifter! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC).Reply

Hi Beach drifter. Wow, it's been a while. I think the time has come for me to own up to the horrible immaturity on my part during the discussions in which we engaged a few months ago. Looking back, I am embarrassed and disgusted by my crappy attitude and ignorance. I apologise for this, and I hope you can forgive me... Orashmatash 20:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Could you please then tell me how to exhume slanderous comments from the talk section such as the anonymous puppy item for which I cannot find factual, reliable resources? I have corrected any items that were obtained from media articles rather than from the direct source where it could be found, and corrected the election results to remove references to newspaper reports to point to the actual state board of elections. These comments are no longer relevant as you will if you follow the referenced link. This is an article that should no longer be under any dispute as to fact.

It would seem that during an election year, political candidates pages should not be open for editing except for factual items such as fundraising results verified through filings, polling results verified through reputable polling institutions, endorsements and non-endorsements verified by a written statement from the endorser, and finally, election results verified by each state's board of elections.

The items I've read over the years on candidates pages points out the most egregious problem of Wikipedia: The ability of any type of person with any agenda to smear another person. Especially on the "talk" page, as those comments are not allowed to be erased when there is no fact behind them? I am also disappointed that users are allowed to use "handles" instead of having to post their real full names. For a site to be trusted, it must be free and open to scrutiny, verifiable by a reliable, third-party source, and not allow comments to be written by hidden sources.

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration in this matter, and I look forward to hearing from you again.

WendyVanTIlburg (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)WendyReply

Why were the factual items from the state board of elections, et al, removed from the page, and reverted back? WendyVanTIlburg (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wendy as for your last edits, I think they were ok edits, however you clearly removd some parts you disagreed with, and also removed a template which was important to that section of the article. I think you should try to incorporate your new edits with the existing material.

As to the talk page...whether or not you agree with the comments, find them factual, etc... is completely a moot point. Editors can discuss the article as they see fit. While content in the article is subject to somewhat strict guidelines, the comments on the talk page are subject to completely different rules.

Lastly, as I pointed out on your talk page, it is clear from your user name that you are the same Wendy involved in this politicians campaign. You should think about not editing his article or any articles relating to him to avoid a conflict of interest. I am sorry that you are disappointed with some ways that wikipedia works...but this is the way it works, and your situation and complaints are pretty common. The articles here are not owned by anyone, but are constantly monitored by many, many editors that are very (and much more so than me) experinced with the project and the policies and guidelines that run it. If you still have an interest in editing this article please spend some time reading the guidelines and feel free to ask questions. There are various and specific help desks that you can post at for help. Beach drifter (talk) 05:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

And thank you for creating the article! I'm writing my M.A. thesis right now and when I was going through Elias' report on Badakhshan, I decided to add a little info on him to his article. The article is an excellent addition. David Straub (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I like the change. I was just experimenting/learning the different functions here. It was a play on being "badgered" with off with ye head like young king Joffrey. SkimmerX (talk) 10:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your upload of File:Banjo0811.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Beach drifter,

You recently reverted 2 edits in Huawei and ZTE, commented: 'Source please'. My edits bring these articles up to date in the wake of extensive reportage. I've identified two primary sources^[1][2]. I plan to restore my edits with the additional material. I believe this addresses your concerns. Thanks! Chasmo (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just to let you know that your note on the above from 2010 has now led to nomination for deletion (puf)... bit of a delay...! :) Thanks! Deadstar (talk) 10:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I saw you removed User:PCHS-NJROTC/EDU from all of the IPs I had it on, and after reading your comment at User talk:204.86.170.3, I had to wonder if you realized the purpose of that template. You're absolutely right, that block on CCPS is ridiculous, and as long as they don't block all of Wikipedia again, I know they will work with us. The purpose of that template I made was to point out that the sysops are (increasingly) trigger happy with IP, especially with schools, and, well, to nicely tell the vandals that they're a dick if they continue to vandalize after knowing the sysops will block all of their peers because they thought it was funny to vandalize a few pages. The days of me sending abuse reports on middle school girls for writing "♥" on the Cheerleading page ended four years ago when I realized that use of excessive force won't really help Wikipedia, but I'd still rather see the cheer captain kicked off her squad or the football MVP lose computer access at school for a year than to see these long-term blocks on entire school districts. Merry Christmas. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I removed the notices or whatever you want to call them because they are condescending in tone and very poorly written. The last sentence doesn't even make sense. Most of the IP talk pages already have relevant notices, and for those that don't I'm sure you know what already existing templates are appropriate. Beach drifter (talk) 07:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I rewrote it, this is why I shouldn't edit while half asleep I suppose... PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Quirkyalone is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quirkyalone (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Dissident Aggressor 21:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I corrected this article. Many mistakes. Describing the wrong persons military career.. Bfloveless (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

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) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey, just letting you know I rolled you back on Marie Elizabeth Watkins Oliver‎ because you removed those maintenance templates without an explanation. Cheers, IagoQnsi (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Explanation left. Cheers. Beach drifter (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

That explanation seems fine. However, I've rolled you back on Hottelstedt‎ for removing the {{unreferenced}} tag when that article does not have any references. -IagoQnsi (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Hottelstedt article has a GND and VIAF control number, which asserts that it is (was) a real place in Germany. I do not feel a tiny former place requires an unrefereced tag when it is proven that it exists. I would appreciate it if you would not revert my edits without looking into them. Thanks. Beach drifter (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why did you undo my edit that was perfectly fine about Maracaibo lightning. Also why did you edit my talk page. Don't edit my talk page again you spaz or I will hack your account and kill you. Think wisely. I know who you are and your family. 86.150.188.184 (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

"Hello, it would be helpful if you would spend some time familiarizing yourself with some Wikipedia policies. Currently you appear to be operating a single purpose account, you can read more about that at WP:SPA. You also appear to be engaging in an edit war. You can read about that at WP:EW and WP:3RR. As mentioned earlier on the talk page at Ilian Mihov, you should also read WP:RS and WP:BLP. Also consider WP:BRD. You were bold with your edits, myself and others have reverted. You can not continue to revert the article over and over. Thanks. Beach drifter (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)"

To your above message.

Thank you. I have reviewed all related Wikipedia policies. Together with other users we could identify that some users from the same organisation as the person described in the article tried to delete the critics. Therefore, this is not an edit war.

Please provide detail arguments and evidence that I am operating a SPA. Thank you.

What does this have to do with the sourcing of the section you keep adding? Beach drifter (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

--Jsinger (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC) Hi Beach Drifter,Reply

I haven’t done any editing on Wikipedia since the 1990s, and it has become so complicated since, that I hope you will excuse me if I’ve blundered in to the wrong page

I am cited on the Neurodiversity page as the originator of the term, and I'd like to make some edits, but am not sure what my editing “rights” - if that’s the right word - are.

I have approached you to see if you can help me out, as I saw you were the last editor of the page

I would like to

• correct misinformation about me on the page
• edit the definition of Neurodiversity
• insert a reference to my book Neurodiversity: the birth of an idea as it contains the original thesis which introduced the concept of neurodiversity, as well as a preface which explains the provenance of the work
• insert a reference to my own definition of the term What is Neurodiversity?
  

Hope to hear from you soon,

Judy

Jsinger (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

--Jsinger 16:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Beach Drifter,

I haven’t done any editing on Wikipedia since the 1990s, and it has become so complicated since, that I hope you will excuse me if I’ve blundered in to the wrong page

I am cited on the Neurodiversity page as the originator of the term, and I'd like to make some edits, but am not sure what my editing “rights” - if that’s the right word - are.

I have approached you to see if you can help me out, as I saw you were the last editor of the page

I would like to

• correct misinformation about me on the page
• edit the definition of Neurodiversity
• insert a reference to my book Neurodiversity: the birth of an idea as it contains the original thesis which introduced the concept of neurodiversity, as well as a preface which explains the provenance of the work
• insert a reference to my own definition of the term What is Neurodiversity?
  

Hope to hear from you soon,

Judy
Jsinger (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply