User talk:Captainbeefart

Duck Soup
This user is a Marxist, of the persuasion Groucho...

Twang
Caution! This user has been condemned to a life of levity...

If my love were just a circus, you'd be a clown by now...
The Captain doesn't care anymore. If you don't like my peaches, don't shake my tree..... Captainbeefart (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Poetry I: Deur wyn en poes is my lewe verwoes...
"Deur wyn en poes is my lewe verwoes"

"Oo! Wanbeheer!

Maar ek beweer

met driemal meer

bloedrooigif en dagga seer

sal die pyn verdwyn"....

Poem by Beefart. Waits for applause..... Long wait.... Ah, very long wait.... In the end Pietopper appears (vide infra). This allows Beefart to exit left.... Dankie ou bees.

If I smack my hands together repeatedly on Wikipedia, does it make a sound? pietopper (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Poetry II: The world is not our dwelling place
The world is not our dwelling place

I see this in the sun that flees

and see it in the heron that, mistrustfully,

the same sun sees

on one leg from the reedy dale

and once the final rays are gone

a chill spills from this queachy lea

a frigid thrill runs right through me

I see it then in everything

that dusk throws round me in a ring

the world is not our dwelling place

The world is not our dwelling place

I see it when the moon blood red

rising from its field-dust bed

still (only just) the church-roof pares

from where an owl, abstrusely dumb,

sits and at that crescent stares.

As it grows quiet down the way

I recollect how, late today,

the mourners of the afternoon

emerged where owl now meets the moon

I mark it then in everything

while even tightens in a ring

the world is not our dwelling place

The world is not our dwelling place

I feel it when the winds awake

and oaken branches clash and break

I hear it in the fluttering

of little birds whose wings are thrown

against the branches smashed and blown

and find on coming closer yet

by moonbeam's vacillating light

a nest of fledglings overset

hurled down by tempest, shattered, dead

and feel it then in everything

as nighttime closes in a ring

the world is not our dwelling place ......

(Totius, translated by Beefart, with permission from Nasionale Pers. Free to use).


 * Very well done. Respect. pietopper (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Poetry III: Vaalvalk
Pale Falcon White is the world of historical mourning and tragic the waltz of the sea at day's dawning dew on the dunes, no zephyr that wakes just a falcon that sings in the circles he makes...

(W.E.G. Louw. Translated by Beefart) Very nice. The rhythm hits you, in a good way. pietopper (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Maeterlinck: Belgian plagiarist poephol extraordinaire. Gaan vlieg in jou moer
Interesting observation you made when you corrected my assassination of Maeterlinck. You are of course correct, I was lazy and typing "Afrikaans poet" meaning poet in Afrikaans and then adding the afterthought "and scientist."

Anyway, I see you are also having some issues with some of the denizens of this Wikiworld (vide infra, Beefart). I have mostly withdrawn after a little runin with one of the admins (blessed be his name!) and now I only play caretaker to a few articles that I am fond of.

I can't help thinking about the Tower of Babel. That started off well also. Building knowledge, they were. No doubt had rules and regulations and supervisors and admins.

pietopper (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Request a grammar check
Captainbeefart, I noticed your edits to the article Rabbit Flat, Northern Territory which were appreciated, and wonder if you would spare a few moments to look at a new 'History' section of the article Connie Sue Highway for me. regards, Summerdrought (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the corrections. I originally had 'which' instead of 'that', should have left it!  The adjective 'intensive' had been used by the original author, but I agree with your changes.  Much appreciated.Summerdrought (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Wakopedia- Fitt the First
On the 13th of September 2011 I received the following message from Wikipedia. Compare this date carefully with the one three lines below:

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Olegas Truchanas has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I made no contribution to the article on Truchanas. If you need further evidence that a few screws are loose at Wikipedia, vide infra...

Wackopedia claimed on the 4th of October 2011 that I was watching these two pages:

4 October 2011 (diff | hist). . Talk:Main Page‎; 14:42. . (+161) . . Wifione (talk | contribs) (→Question: yas) 1 October 2011 (diff | hist). . Essential National Industries (Employment) Decree 2011‎; 19:34. . (+34) . . Dl2000 (talk | contribs) (unify formatting per MoS, script-assisted (FJi subject))

I had never visited either of these pages.....

More from the aether sniffers: This arrived on the 4th December 2011. Once again, compare dates. Open quote:

"March 2009 Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page McCain Foods Limited has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. GnoworTalk 08:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page McCain Foods Limited. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Versus22 talk 08:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)". Close quote.

I never wrote a word about McCain.....

Fitt the Second- Are robots running amok at Wankopedia? May 2012
More bizarre stuff:

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Mahogany Ship, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!}  (Whisper...) 13:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Where I grew up, a brookie was a small pair of underpants.... The potential for bad puns is almost limitless Captainbeefart (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Fitt the third: WIKIN**I
Yes, they do exist. I have conducted a set of careful tests and have satisfied myself that it is true.

Yes, I could name a few. As Mr. Cash said, "There's a man goin' round, taking names".....

No, of course I'm not going to do so here. As Mr. Rogers said, "You've got to know when to hold them and know when to fold them"....

Yes, there is a bot that roams Wikipedia and deletes all references to the subject. (There may be several of these "Amnesiabots". I think one is used to blot egregious trolls out of existence. A few years ago a persistent vandal named cloakwillcloakieocloaknwhcloakeecloakls (remove all cloaks for the name) generated thousands of pages at Wikipedia (his own and the responses of others). Today it is as though he never existed. No, I'm not arguing that that is a bad thing. I just don't like being treated as though I were a mushroom).

Yes, there is a secret code used to refer to the word. The code is meaningless to mere mortals but used by people high up in the food chain at Wikipedia.

No, I won't tell you what the code is. Were I to do so, the bot would come for me. But it is not hard to find. Look for it yourself. Put out a little bait.

Yes I do know other people who know about the bot. Try Google.

No, I have not been threatened and I do not know anybody who has been.

No, I am not paranoid. But just because I'm not paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me....

And no, I don't want you to post anything here.....

Fitt the 4th: Then out came the Ugly Stick
I had not reviewed my Talk Page for yonks but did do early in July 2012. A little later I became aware of what appeared to be a cyberattack on me. In the space of less than two minutes four major edits were recorded in my name in the editing history of an article at Wikipedia. Each was "signed" by me.

I had nothing to do with any of them. I do not believe the event was a coincidence.

I do not have the level of technical sophistication required to manipulate Wikipedia in any advanced way, nor to investigate how such an event could have occurred. I have heard of this sort of thing happening to other editors, who were then accused of "vandalism" or being "sock puppets" when they were in fact the victims of abuse, not the perpetrators.

I know of no entity within Wikipedia that monitors or attempts to counter corrupt practices. Over the years I have noted many instances of outright abuse and bullying at Wikipedia but I have never seen anybody step in to say "Just a minute, that is unfair".

I have seen little to suggest that the people who run Wikipedia give a fig about this sort of injustice, despite the plethora of stated high ideals. In my experience they talk the talk but they don't walk the walk...

Fitt the 5th: Ugly Stick Part II
Adding April Fools Day to the Mahogany Ship article was original research, your own comment. See WP:NOR. You definitely added it once. We've been having some server problems so the other 3 edits, which did nothing, may have been the result of those. Definitely not the result of some evil conspiracy. Dougweller (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff. A little goldmine, in fact.

(1) I am the smallest of cogs at Wikipedia, one of millions. Almost nobody visits my page. Months go by without any change occuring. I am a non-entity. But I add a few remarks in the vein above and within a very short space of time somebody from much higher up in the food chain is on my page and on my case. Either this is another coincidence, or I am being monitored.

(2) My memory is not perfect but I very much doubt that I ever added the comment "original research" to one of my own contributions. The concept is bizarre. It would be akin to holding up a big sign saying "Kick me"". I may be crazy but I'm not stupid...

(3) My original position was resisted by other editors (and it is their right) on the grounds encompassed by WP:Undue. I hold that to be illogical but I did not contest the issue. I changed my approach (that is my right) to adding a cross-reference. That's all it is. Nothing of my own. Just a plain, unadorned reference to another article in Wikipedia. Millions of editors do this every day. Wikipedia groans with cross-references. But suddenly, in my case, this now becomes the stuff of WP:NOR (which was nowhere mentioned earlier). So there you have it kiddies, from the horse's mouth: adding a reference to Wikipedia is now original research when it suits certain folk at Wikipedia.

(4) "You definitely added it once". Just consider the aggressive tone of that sentence and then let's unpack it. What is being said is that "You definitely once tried to edit Wikipedia". Well, forgive me for trespassing. I thought that was what editors were invited to do. I did not realize somebody had bought the farm...

(5) Finally we have a grudging concession that things can go wrong at Wikipedia and that this can make innocent people look bad. No contrition is expressed. The attitude is "hard cheese"... Once again, note the tone. The possessive. We don't read "Wikipedia has been having some server problems". The expression is "We've been having some server problems". Even if the origin of this expression is subconscious, it is indicative. There are people out there who now think they own Wikipedia. Perhaps they are right. There is nothing I can do about that....

I can but continue to argue my case logically in the face of people who don't use logic but resort to obfuscation, high-handedness and abuse in seeking to make sure that their opinions are more important than mine. My requests for reason are dismissed with arrogance. One editor wrote "Nonsense". Nothing further. Most enlightening. In another edit we read the expression "We've been here before", followed by a bewildering non sequitur.

In the end it doesn't matter much to me. My aim is merely to leave a record for others who may feel that Wikipedia is not what it once was and that the changes have not been for the better.

Captainbeefart (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a community, it's common for members of a community to use 'we' in talking about the community. And I said that you definitely edited once because you seemed to be denying any of the edits. There is obviously nothing wrong in editing 'per se', but your edit was against one of our policies. Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I will state again, on oath if necessary, that the last four edits were not from my hand. Three of them are clearly machine-generated and they follow hard on the heels of a fourth. Yet another coincidence? How long are you going to argue that these are coincidences? A fair man has only to look at my history of contributions to Wikipedia to conclude that I am no vandal. (I confess that at times I have been a joker. So, sue me)...

My august nemesis condemns himself again out of his own mouth, kiddies. Recall that my complaint was about tendentiousness and a high-handed approach. Then note that he says "your edit was against one of our policies". He once again uses the Royal We and it does not occur to him to say "In my humble opinion, your edit was against one of our policies". This is because he does not have a humble opinion. As Leonard Cohen said, "One of us can't be wrong". He makes no attempt to justify his decree ex cathedra. He merely maintains the former level of aggression, knowing full well that small cogs in Wikipedia have no opportunity to use the system to defend themselves.

I rest my case. We are dealing here with a cohort of people who regard themselves as infallible and who will therefore not entertain the concepts of reason and debate. They don't have to, because nobody can compel them to do so.... Captainbeefart (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Fitt the 6th. Somebody else has an opinion. Not common on my page: "Wiki nazism". (His term, not mine)
This is a mildly interesting little essay, but articles aren't for essays, no matter how interesting (or even perceptive). -- Hoary (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you SO much for sharing your condescension with me. You are toooooo kind. Captainbeefart (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm. Things have changed since I studied the essays of "Alpha of the Plough" under the eye of Mr Mark Taylor. Now, it seems, even a short paragraph is classed as a "mildly interesting little essay." More power to your arm. pietopper (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Fitt the 7th
On the 1st of May 2014 I received a "thank you" for an edit I had made more than eight years earlier (Bible Institute of South Africa).... Captainbeefart (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"One cannot 'marry a dowry'"
Hi there! You wrote in your edit-summary of an edit of BARBER OF SEVILLE: "One cannot 'marry a dowry'". This comes to mind:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sor9GzivGbk

HandsomeMrToad (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Witels


The article Witels has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unsourced."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)