User talk:Grillmaster423
December 2010
Keanu Reeves
I did read the source. The paragraph in the Guardian piece is I can't resist asking if Cheer Up Keanu Day was in any way responsible for Reeves's current ebullience. Did he even know about it? "Oh, the internet deal," he says vaguely. "It was brought to my attention. Yeah, it was funny. But no, the book predates that by a long time. We finished it in August 2009. It is hopefully, in a quiet and enjoyable way, transformative. The kind of thing that takes you from this one place to another – to look at yourself and, y'know, it can always be worse. I hate that sentence: of course it can always be worse!"
I can't resist asking if Cheer Up Keanu Day was in any way responsible for Reeves's current ebullience. Did he even know about it? "Oh, the internet deal," he says vaguely. "It was brought to my attention. Yeah, it was funny. But no, the book predates that by a long time. We finished it in August 2009. It is hopefully, in a quiet and enjoyable way, transformative. The kind of thing that takes you from this one place to another – to look at yourself and, y'know, it can always be worse. I hate that sentence: of course it can always be worse!"
The quote you say is about "the unsolicited attention"
It is hopefully, in a quiet and enjoyable way, transformative. The kind of thing that takes you from this one place to another – to look at yourself and, y'know, it can always be worse. I hate that sentence: of course it can always be worse!
is very clearly about the book he wrote. Cannolis (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
March 2015
- What a joke? You've removed over 4,000 chraacters from that page. All of your edits have been reverts which indicates to me, that you wish to stop dissemination of information on the subject. Why would any intelligent person assume good faith when observing that type of behavior? It'd be one thing if you added a source or even changed the wording or sentence structure. You're doing nothing but removing information that others can adjust at a later time. If every unsourced sentence was REMOVED from Wikipedia, the articles would be baren and confusing. Common sense is always injected throughout sourced material to create an understandable piece of text. Given, that you're calling for the deletion of the article, and simultaneously removing large swaths of text, how can good faith be implied?Grillmaster423 (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- I won't be engaging in direct discussion with you anymore. You delete things. Then justify your revert by saying the material is unsourced. Then claim material is untrue. Then claim it's not really information, but misinformation. When your justifications are proven to be false, you a lie up a new one.
- If you ADDED anything to the page, your presence would at least be warranted. But you haven't and it isn't. Bye.