This is an archive of past discussions about User:Geoff B. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi! I noticed your name on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror membership list and am writing to all members who have not voted for the Collaboration of the month. Today is the designated selection day to choose the collaboration, but we currently have a tie between the two articles receiving the most votes, John Carpenter and Dario Argento. I am hoping to remedy this by drumming up a few more votes. Note that by voting for any nominated article (not limited to these two) you are indicating your "commitment to support and aid in collaborating on that specific article if it is chosen," so please feel absolutely free to ignore this message if for any reason you don't wish or would not be able to participate.--Fuhghettaboutit22:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, nice one. Do we all just pitch in as we see fit or do we get assigned roles or something? I've never officially collaborated on an article before. :-) Geoff B13:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Do as much or as little as you want, whenever you want, and use the talk page for suggestions, comments, etc. It's a whole month and I don't imagine we will hold this to a hard and fast rule of one month exactly. I'm at work gotta run. Thanks.--Fuhghettaboutit14:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Resident Evil 4
Geoff B, your last edits were (I presume) intended on cleaning up the weapons section, right? However, like last time the edit erased the entire lower article half, including foreign language referencing, the music reference and the cast list. I'm not sure how it happened, but please be more careful next time you do an article cleanup, since this isn't the first time. Ex-Nintendo Employee21:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
hey id like ot point out that the TMP is an SMG which i forgot to place the the CHicag typewriter is also an SMg and the minethrower and all the rockets are explosives and the PRL is a miccellaneous
So if the TMP and CT are SMGs, why label them machine guns? And the rocket launchers are not explosives. They themselves do not explode. They LAUNCH an EXPLOSIVE (the rocket). The SMGs, RLs and the PRL all fit neatly under Miscellaneous. Until you establish aconsensus among the editors of that page, it will stay the way it is. Please sign your comments with four tildes (this symbol ~) so I know who I'm talking to. Geoff B18:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
uh ok sorry i join3ed it a week ago so i dont get the shake down a bit
No problem. I think the weapon list could use some improving, certainly, but I'm not sure what. The TMP and CT could be moved under their own 'submachine guns' subheader. There's only two of them, but there's only two rifles, and they have their own subheader. As for the rocket launchers, they're are all basically the same weapon, with slight differences (one's 'special' one has infinite ammo). The mine thrower and the PRL are unique. So I think they should go under miscelllaneous. Geoff B00:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Could someone tell me where this idea of a Master or Queen Plaga came from. Those words let alone the concepts they represent are never listed or indicated as existing in the game. im aware that Seperate Ways says "master Plaga" sample, but that more than likely just refers to an original and un-altered plaga, a 1st generation plaga, kind of like the master disk for system code. No one ever indicates that there is a queen type organism present in the game.
Hm, seems like touting phrases and concepts with no discernible way, let alone any actual way, to substantiate them, considering they are wholly made up, is a little bit like defacing wouldnt you say?
Anglicization
Geoff, while the manual of style says "don't change from english to US spellings", reverting isn't really needed either. Both spellings are acceptable, this was kinda silly. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
So if changing it wasn't needed, why was it changed in the first place? If the guideline is 'don't change it from UK to US (or indeed vice versa) then surely the revert was needed? Aren't articles supposed to use either UK spelling or US spelling, and not a mixture? AFAIK, the article used UK spelling, and although this has been disgregarded by a few editors, I am not ignoring it. I'm not changing the spelling, I'm merely keeping it as it should be. Likewise, when I work on articles that have Americanised spelling, I don't change those to UK. Geoff B02:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
7.92x57mm JS
Now look what you all have done. "Now known in Europe as the 7.92x57mm JS"... but it is NOT known in Europe as the 7.92x57mm JS! Besides moving the title around, you've also changed the HISTORICAL REFERENCES of this this many-named cartridge to something IT WAS NEVER CALLED.
HangFire04:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
According to WP cartridge naming conventions, it's meant to be a full stop, not a comma, so that is what I will continue to use. And I live in europe, and I can assure you when people write about the cartridge, they spell it "7.92". Sorry. Geoff B04:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Enjoying your horror film contributions
I'm a fan of your horror film contributions. Just letting you know. ;)
QUICK QUESTION ABOUT SLiTHER/NIGHT OF THE CREEPS: I remember (maybe inaccurately) that at the end of NOTC that all the worms rendevouz in the basement and become this giant multi-tentacle blob. Something about brains being stored in the basement where the worms feast and copulate on the brain flesh, or something like that. Am I wrong? I could've sworn that the detective goes into the basement with tape on his mouth to destroy the alien blob of worms with flammable gas. If I am wrong, then thank you for correcting me. You probably have a better memory about this then I do, I'm just curious. Been awhile since I've seen it. Take care! :) Tromaintern20:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
At the end of NOTC, IIRC, all the worms are down in the basement, and they're all in a big pile over near where the brains are (I think it's brains. Or heads. Can't remember) in the corner. So they're all together in one place, but they don't join together a la Slither. Some of them suddenly gain the ability to fly, but I don't remember any tentacles. I'll see if I can get some screenshots, if I can find my copy. Geoff B20:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
AW:DS+AW/AW2 Extras
In the discussion for Advance Wars DS, you said what extras get unlocked if you start the game up with Advance Wars in the GBA slot. Well my Advance Wars games for the GBA got stolen, and I was wondering if you can still unlock the extra content without having the games. It'll be nice to know when I get AWDS next week.
Wouldn't you call the spoof of the beginging car having NC plates and the ending car having Montana plates valid trivia? -Zippeh
Er, no, because they're two different cars, you see. Beginning car - silver. Ending car - blue. The fact that one car has N. Carolina licence plates and one has Montana licence plates is of no importance whatsoever, as far as I can see. Geoff B11:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I reinserted the word "primitive" into the article's descriptions of Panzerkleins, since (a) the anachronistic crudeness of ~2050 technology made with 1943 means is quite clear, and (b) this style of design is an intentional choice and an important part of the things, certainly worth one word. If you still can't suffer it to live, could you at least provide a reason? Deleting it without an explanation, though Lord knows I do it myself, is blunt to the point of being slightly rude and can needlessly send a message of article ownership.
While we're at it, I changed "several" back to to "a hail of". To me, it's perfectly understandable and helps the otherwise rather flat text. --Kizor02:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
My problem with 'primitive' is that, as I understand the concept, powered armour of any sort is not primitive, especially in a 1943 context. Compared to other depictions of powered armour, yes, they are primitive, but we're not comparing them to other depictions, are we? Or if we are, I don't really think we should be, as the article is about the game itself.
As for 'hail of' versus 'several' - I wouldn't call a short burst of three rounds a 'hail', though they may certainly make the target shake. The rather flat text needs a lot of improvement, agreed, but I feel this can be done without hyperbole. Geoff B02:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The suits need some thought, but as for "hail," IIRC there are some full bursts involved. Machine guns and the like. --Kizor03:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
'Crude' is a definite improvement! You can indeed perform long and short bursts, 'hail' is just a minor issue of semantics, really. Repeated impacts make the target shake, whether it be three or ten. Geoff B03:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Then this seems to be solved. Booya!
By the way, you can use HTML line break tags to have empty lines while maintaining spacing (or was it inlining? The stuff that looks like this anyway) --Kizor13:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Trauma Center:UTK
I've reverted your changes to that article because the question where asked by Nurse Angie in the Game and they where unanswered. Nubula18:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I will keep reverting the paragraph in question as I see no reason to delete it as it is not conjecture as you keep erroneously claming it is. Conjecture is a theory with no evidence to support it; I have not put forward any theory’s just pointing out what the game itself notes. Nubula19:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Dont you dare try to paint me as the bad guy simply for disagreeing with you understand.
Interesting how you deny that you was attacking me personaly, despite phrases like you've been totally intransigent,Do you simply not care about the quality of the article? and I honestly don't think you care. And you don't think this is confrontational on your part? I don't see why I should obey Marquis of Queensbury rules when you keep making snide little remarks like that. And on a side note the reason I stopped responding is not because of malice as you belive but because I do have a life besides wikipedia unless you belive I should put my life on hold while waiting for your next reply. Nubula12:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
So your response is to simply defend your confrontational stance, even though it's illogical to blame me for doing the same. Also i did not rudly ignore you at all and you did not ask any questions. Nubula12:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Those where rhetorical not real questions at best, a personal attack at worst. The fact that you said question at first rather than questions is proof of your backpeddling. Secondly they have nothing whatsoever to do with the question at hand do they? Nubula13:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I suggested creating a list because I don't particularly want to delete the Crawler article (as evinced by the gap between my talk page comments), and as I was looking over some guidelines, there was a mention of Horses of Middle-earth which is basically just a list of what it says, most of them being minor, rather than major, characters. Which I thought might suit perfectly, as the Crawler article as it is has a lot of original research and uncited statements, probably due to trying to get it up to scratch when there aren't many sources of information about them (Marshall's quotes, the odd mention from cast and crew, etc) as opposed to say, the Morlocks, which have been the subject of several books and films. There have been a few underground monster films lately and some in the past, so I don't know if it justifies an underground-creatures-in-fiction category or something like that? Geoff B17:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
NO personal attacks
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Henchman 200019:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've added my name to the RfC page, and added my comment on the talk page. I also moved your comment to the talk page, which I think is the correct location because the 'Discussion' section, confusingly, isn't for discussion. Never been part of an RfC before, so I hope I got it right. Geoff B16:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Your accusation
If you read my sock case, you will find out I am innocent, and have never engaged in sockpuppetry. And what original research are you talking about? Henchman 200018:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't accuse you of sockpuppetry. What I said was "there's some kind of puppetry going on, meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry, I don't know which." Those are, to my mind, the only explanations I can think of for (apparently) two users, who share a computer, and continually support each other. Even to the extent of replacing OR into the article. Bowsy placed a UK release date into the article, obtained from a trip to a shop. It was removed, and you replaced it, claiming you went to the shop with him. It was still original research, as you do not pass the criteria for a reliable source on WP. Geoff B19:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Geoff - In the interest of avoiding conflict, I'm going to make my case for the the unit difference notation being included. Since the article is based on a video game, much of the information provided for it is verified by one source - the game or game(s) itself. The game (at least Dual Strike) evidences this phenomenon. I feel it's akin to knowing the uniform variants of your favorite sports team whether they're home or away, or what outfit Leon S. Kennedy gets to wear during his various adventures.
As I'm not trying to vadalize the article or add bad content, I would ask you accept the inclusion of some version of the paragraph instead of excoriating it piecemeal: I'd gladly remove the "resembles ______" Army lines, as those can't be verified and are my personal opinion, but I do believe the designs differences were intentional on the part of Intelligent Systems. Cheers, 80818:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree that the resemblances are intentional, no argument. But saying so without a source is OR, unfortunately. That's why I removed the para (which was hasty on my part, I apologise). I've been looking for a reference that could allow us to say something like that, but the best I have been able to find is a quote from Makoto Shimojo, the director:
"..I also thought we were trying to cater to the needs of avid simulation fans who would know all about the weapons and care about the tiny details of the costumes. So we followed real history, we tried to preserve the spirit of the weapons and the arsenals, but everything is deformed rather than duplicated. But professional eyes can see through all that. They can say: "Oh, I understand they are replicating the core aspects of the real weapons.", and they like that."
He doesn't come out and say "this is based on the A-10 Warthog, this one is based on the AH-64 Apache" etc so I don't really know how much support it gives us. Geoff B22:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Resident Evil
What the hell are you doing? The article was originally in true English and changed to American English. I reverted it back, and then you reverted it again, changing the original text and re-adding the spelling errors to boot. I'd also like to know where it says that articles must be written in American English. Gamer Junkie18:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm standardising the article. It was mostly in US English (BTW, there is no such variety of English as 'true English') and WP's policy is to have each article written in one variation of English, (usually either US or UK) not a mixture of both. Not all articles must be written in US English (though according to WP guidelines it's preferable for US subjects), but this one is mostly US English, and so should be standardised as such. Being a Brit, I prefer UK English, but it's not about what I prefer, it's about WP guidelines. Geoff B19:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I call it true English because that's what it is. Since the US is the only country that actually uses American English, I'd find it hard for anybody to have trouble identifying what true English is when I use American English in the same sentence. You say most of the article was written in American English? That's strange, as I re-wrote most of the article last year, and, being Australian, I didn't write it in American English. Either your lying, or somebody re-wrote the article again. Always the one to assume good faith, I'll go with the latter. Please do not say that Wikipedia is about the guidelines, I'm really getting sick of hearing that. Wikipedia is about providing information and educational articles to people who wish to use the site. Guidelines are exactly that - guidelines and nothing more. Since guidelines are merely POV's written by other editors, they are unreliable. It's only policy that needs to be obeyed. By the way, Resident Evil is in no way American, other than the US voice actors who were hired to portray the characters. The series is entirely Japanese and always has been. Gamer Junkie20:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
What other countries officially use American English? Also, if you look above, you'll notice that you said, in your exact words "it's about WP guidelines." In any case, that's not the point. Looking over the article, it appears somebody has re-written or reverted it. The only part I recall writing at least some of in the present article is the enemies section. Looks like you were right. Gamer Junkie21:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The Phillippines and Puerto Rico, to name two. And yes, I said "it" is about WP guidelines, where "it" is the issue we are currently discussing, not the whole of WP, as you said. Anyway, glad the re-write issue cleared itself up. Geoff B21:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
We've moved to 5.56x45mm as the standard designation, if that helps. Drop me a line if you've got any more questions! --Commander Zulu04:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion
Please do not refer to a good faith edit as stupidity. The only thing that can possibly happen is that the person whose edit was called stupid will either not notice it or notice it, get pissed, and start a flame war. - A Link to the Past(talk)22:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't consider someone describing a game over as an alternate ending to be a good faith edit. It was stupid, and I described it as such. Geoff B22:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
So you are saying that the user put that text on the page for the sole purpose of making the page worse? I would like to see a bit of evidence to imply that this user wasn't putting that there because he thought it belonged.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. And you're right, more people should read basic policies, starting with the person that put that stupidity on the page. It would save me editing out a lot of stupid shit from Wikipedia, assuming they actually took any notice of those policies. Go to any other game article, and add in that if you do x and get a game over, that's an alternate ending, and see the response you get. It isn't an alternate ending, just like if you fuck up at any other stage of the game and get a game over, that's not an alternate ending either. Geoff B12:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
What don't you understand? You're not allowed. I like how you seem to claim that this person should read basic policies - even though POLICY has nothing to do with it. His edits arguably lower the quality of the article, and the only thing he would violate are quality guidelines. However, to call his edit stupid is nothing but a violation of:
Respect other contributors. By insulting his edits, how in the world do you show an ounce of respect to him in any way? How could you ever claim that you understand policies when you violated one of the key policies of Wikipedia, ie - one of the ones that you must follow, no questions asked?
The Assume good faith guideline. On what basis do you assume bad faith in his contributions? Can you even begin to indicate that he was acting in bad faith in adding that to Wikipedia?
No personal attacks. While you did not call him stupid, the only thing - LITERALLY, the only thing that you could ever accomplish by calling his edit stupid is to start a flame war, because someone takes your attack personally. Any objective Wikipedian would look at this edit and say it's just an edit that is not quality, NOT a "stupid" edit or "bad" edit. In effect, you are being a much worse Wikipedian, simply because you aren't striving to improve other editors, but cause conflict and/or get people off of Wikipedia. You're the kind of person that gets people pissed off and want to leave Wikipedia, so yes, I'd thank you to stop making insulting edit summaries, but I won't, because this is something you must follow unconditionally.
You know, since you seem to not care about following key policies, let me rephrase my suggestion.
My favourite part of your reply: I'd thank you to stop making insulting edit summaries, but I won't. Great stuff. Keep it up! Geoff B21:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
It's wonderful knowing that everyday, more and more Wikipedians think that they somehow are right and all policy is wrong. I'd really appreciate it if you stopped editing Wikipedia until you educated yourself some more about basic policies that must be followed unconditionally. - A Link to the Past(talk)21:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Laughable statement, coming from someone who has been blocked multiple times for violating WP policy. I'll carry on editing Wikipedia, no matter whether you or anyone else appreciates it or not. Thank you. Geoff B22:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Laughable? Are you disputing the validity of your offense? Are you claiming that to call another editor's edit stupid does anyone but cause flame wars? Give me one good reason why someone who trolls other users deserves to edit Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past(talk)22:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and just to note, I haven't been blocked for 3RR in three months, and the majority of my block log is over one controversial block (wheel warring). However, you openly defend your policy violation and claim that another user is acting in bad faith based on nothing but an assumption. The laughable thing is that you think you're better than me despite you not even caring that you violate policy. And let me tell you - being uncivil is much, much worse than violating 3RR. - A Link to the Past(talk)22:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to clear this up, the reason I added it was because A) a similar "ending" can happen if the player messes up the end of Phoenix Wright: Justice for All, and is mentioned on that game's page, and B) It appeared to be a unique way of getting a Game Over (though it turns out I was wrong on that, a similar ending can happen in the fourth case) for the first game.
However, what I don't appreciate is the insinuation that because I admittedly made a bad edit, I'm therefore "stupid" and don't know the first thing about Wikipedia policy (whether or not that's the impression you wanted to give I don't know, but that's what it looks like from here). I've made plenty of edits to both the Phoenix Wright and Justice for All pages and never once had them shot down as "stupidity," nor indeed most of my contributions in the last three years. What we have here is a case of a bad edit, which you're making out to be a case of a bad editor, and frankly I think that's needless. --DaveJB22:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, isn't this funny. I guess Geoff was wrong when he said that it was just fine to call your edit stupid. But knowing him, he'll continue to say that everyone is wrong except for him. - A Link to the Past(talk)22:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
What's to know? A wonderful summation of your own ignorance, and the assumption that one of my edits stands for the entirety of my contributions. Wonderful. Do continue, I find you most amusing. You've been blocked from WP several times, yet flounce about decrying other editors and lamenting their lack of knowledge about WP policy, which you yourself have flaunted repeatedly. I'd thank you to educate yourself about WP policy, but seeing as it's compulsory, I won't. Geoff B23:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
What should I say? "Sure, you violated policy, insulted another user, and then insulted the user a second time to defend the first insult, but oh well". By the way - you can't use the stupid "you got blocked for something" argument to defend your blockable offense. If you violate policy, you violate policy. It doesn't matter one bit that anyone else was blocked for anything. And, by the way, as I said: Most of my blocks were one situation where the block in the first place was considered controversial by many (through wheel warring), most of them being 3RR, and the simple fact that I have not violated 3RR in three months and have openly acknowledged that I did violate policy and should be blocked when I violate 3RR. However, you defend your right to insult another Wikipedian - by, ironically, insulting them. - A Link to the Past(talk)23:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Simply fascinating. Do go on. Your ability to wilfully misconstrue anything and everything I say is marvellous. Please come back again, I do so enjoy our little chats. Geoff B23:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
You lost the chance to make a point about personal attacks when you indulged in hypocrisy and personally attacked me. Better luck next time. You'll need it! Geoff B01:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
It happens when Wikipedians pinch other Wikipedians. If you don't want incivility, don't talk down to people for bringing up the fact that you didn't read Wikipedia policy. - A Link to the Past(talk)01:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, do you still believe that my edit to the Phoenix Wright article was in bad faith, in the wake of the explanation I posted above? If not, then I would appreciate an apology, and if you still think the edit was not in good faith, I would like to know why. --DaveJB23:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
And you deserve one. I apologise, DaveJB, I mistook your edit for something it was not. It was made in good faith, and mine eyes were clouded by all the bad faith edits of days gone by. Geoff B01:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll consider the matter dropped now, and I'll try and avoid making bad edits in the future.--DaveJB07:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Resident Evil
The information I included about there being contovesy surrounding the title of 'first survival horror game' is completely relevent to the Resident Evil page, so please do not delete this in future, as you have no right to do so.
1) There is no controversy over what was the first survival horror title, though there is a fair amount of discussion and argument over it. If there is controversy (and please note the spelling, because when you added it to the page, it was misspelled, as you have misspelled it here, too) please provide sources.
2) It is not relevant to the RE entry. It's basically discussion about the genre itself, and when exactly it was established. Such discussion belongs on either the Alone in the Dark or Survival horror page, not on RE's. It's a fact that RE was the first game called a survival horror. It was also, as a matter of style, shoddily integrated into the page. You just stuck a 'however' onto the end of a pre-existing sentence and then tacked on your comment.
3) Do not be so arrogant as to instruct me as to what I may and may not do. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit so I have every right to do so, and moreover, I will continue to do so. Have a good 'un. Geoff B16:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. //PTO22:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that you consider both the movie taglines and the complete cast for Big Trouble in Little China to be "non-notable". It just goes to show that, as a Wikipedia editor, one can't please everyone all of the time. Some people may be very interested in seeing the original taglines used to publicise the movie and having a complete list of all the cast members, while others make like the Cybermen in Doctor Who and "Delete! Delete! Delete!".
It's true that some cast members of the film may be 'dead ends' (in red typeface) at the moment, i.e. not having articles in Wikipedia. But who's to say that someone somewhere won't request or create some or all of these one day?
Bearing in mind that (a) life's too short, (b) I've no wish to get involved in an editing conflict, and (c) I'm willing to be reasonable, I'll allow the article to remain as it is. Otherwise you and I will be altering them back and forth for the rest of our lives, which will be most inconvenient for both of us... :-)
Wikipedia itself recommends leaving out the taglines, unless they were a very significant part of the promotional campaign or were somehow otherwise notable (IIRC, the example given is Jaws 2's "Just when you thought it was safe to get back into the water"). The cast section only needs to cover the main characters (I may be in error here, not sure) because this isn't IMDb. And you made two additions to the plot one of which was a good point (it's been kept, unless I messed it up) and one was POV, which I removed. Geoff B17:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Geoff B. I note your comments. As for your opinion (which you are perfectly entitled to, I admit) that the cast section needs only to cover the main characters, personally I consider it rather misrepresentative to list only, for example, eight characters when there are actually, say, thirty or more – and, with respect, not everyone may have heard of IMDb. Just because there's an external link to this website on the page doesn't mean it'll automatically be clicked on... :-)
Still, each and every Wikipedia editor has his or her own way of doing things and we can't all think alike, can we? Otherwise, to quote the Doctor in Doctor Who's The Mind Robber (1968): "Sausages! Man will become like a string of sausages – all the same!" :-)
With regard to the plot addition I made which you kept (I assume you were referring to David Lo Pan being "also the reclusive millionaire owner of a shipping business called the Wing Kong Exchange") and were concerned you had messed up, don't worry: I've checked and it's still intact – for now. With Wikipedia being the encylopedia that anyone can edit, who knows how long it will stay?
Umm. I was not the one insisting that an article exist there. I honestly do not care whether there is an article there. I care that the *not* be a worthless, informationless, sub-stub there. To that end, redirecting to an article that has every bit of information that was in the sub-stub is a perfectly valid alternative. If you feel that there must be an article at that spot instead of a redirect, then IMHO it is *your* responsibility that it be at a minimum a worthwhile stub. For me, a redirect serves my goals (no sub-stub) just as well.
There's also the issue on knowledge. I have knowledge of the project, and of what are worthless articles. I do not have knowledge of this author or his books that would be needed to flesh out the sub-stub. You apparently do have the needed knowledge, as you were able to create a valid stub of it when you set out to do so. So who should be the one to be responsible for fleshing out the stub? The one with knowledge of the subject, or the one without knowledge of the subject?
And finally, there's the issue of motivation. You obviously care enough to insist on there being a page there. I do not. I care about there not being a worthless article. So who should be responsible for fleshing out the stub? The one who cares about the subject, or the one who does not?
So, in general, I reject your assertion that I should in any way be responsible for fleshing out the sub-stub, when redirecting is a perfectly valid remedy for the sub-stub situation. Redirecting of sub-stubs to parent articles is in general a perfectly valid way of dealing with the sub-stubs. That in this particular case *you* want there to be an actual article at the spot is fine also, but if that is what *you* want, then it is on *you* to flesh it out there, not on the janitor that was cleaning up the previously existant mess. - TexasAndroid13:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Neil Marshall
Hope you don't mind the redirection of the content to his article. There wasn't much confirmed information for most of his announced projects, so it seemed more suitable to have the information here until something actually gets going. I finally saw The Descent this past week -- one of the better horror movies I've seen! I saw Dog Soldiers before that, and I wasn't impressed. The Descent was a significant improvement, and I'm looking forward to his Doomsday (which I was watching before, but I'll probably give it even more attention now). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense to me! Info on the Descent 2 is still thin on the ground, and the article stretched what there was painfully, it's better off out of its misery as part of the Neil Marshall article.. Glad you enjoyed The Descent, it is a step up from DogS. Geoff B13:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. What part of the MoS are you talking about? I'd be very interested in one that states American release dates must be placed on everything? Because it would clearly need fixing. Matthew15:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Not sure why that's tagged as a MoS (as it's in the WikiProject space)... but I don't see anything stating that an American date must be stated. Clearly that page is broken, regardless. Matthew16:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Matthew/Geoff - looks like the project's style guidelines say the release year should be specified. Film was first release in 2002, and then released in other countries later (including the US). So to follow the project's guidelines, the lead para ought to just specify the 2002 year. I'll modify it to reflect this, but appreciate any thoughts you've each got. If changes to the guidelines are needed, let's discuss that on the guidelines talk page. --Oscarthecat21:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
What about release dates in the infobox (that's what this has been about)? Thanks for your quick reply! Geoff B22:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, the MoS is pretty clear on that, release dates in the infobox should should cover "English-speaking countries (because this is the English Wikipedia); e.g. the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc". In short, it's perfectly valid for the USA release date to be in the infobox, along with UK (as film is set in the UK, and was made in the UK, of course). --Oscarthecat06:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey you removed my post where I was asking where to fight a U3, because "Wikipedia is not a forum," yet you didn't bother to remove a post where someone is asking about a "Smelly Whore" in the game. Whatever, I don't get you. Link's Awakening09:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Phoenix Wright references
I understand that Wikipedia is not merely a repository for itemised lists of reference - otherwise, as a Kingdom of Loathing player, I would be busily filling that page with all the hundreds of references contained in that game.
Nevertheless, I feel it is relevant to include some cultural influences on the localisation of Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, especially as it was according to the localisation team packed with cultural references in the original Japanese (interviews to this fact linked in the PW:AA page).
Also, some of the section you removed I would hardly consider OR - the suggestion that a character uses 1337 speak is a statement of fact. He does. The game itself stands as testament to this fact. Perhaps a link to a transcription of the game script would be suitable reference?
I would appreciate if we could have a discussion on this matter rather than deleting and restoring the entire section piecemeal - at the very least my new, sourced paragraph about the use of references in localisation should be left in the article - perhaps under the heading "Localisation". Emcee N12:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Metric cartridge nomenclature
Thank you for your edits to the Sniper rifle article. I appreciate your contribution and corrections, but try to use SI / CIP writing style when dealing with metric cartridges.
The correct nomenclature is (calibre) x (case length) [addition(s)]. An example would be the 8 x 57 IS, the former service round Germany used during WWII under its military designation 7,92 x 57 IS. Outside CIP (the European ammunition standards authority) regulated countries metric cartridges like the 8 x 57 IS or its rimmed variant the 8 x 57 IRS are often written as 8x57IRS or 8x57mmIRS or just about every imaginable other spelling variation. The Russian rimmed service round is spelled as 7,62 x 54 R. Sweden once used the 6,5 x 55 cartridge. A recently introduced sporting cartridge is the 6,5 x 47 Lapua, etc. Since English uses the . instead of the , as decimal separator so you can write 6.5 x 55, 7.62 x 54 R etc. Under Ballistic Data & Application Consultant you can see how lots of cartridges are correctly termed in German (Germany is a member of CIP and uses the metric system).
I added the Russian 14.5 x 114 cartridge again since it is used in several anti-materiel rifles mentioned in the article. This cartridge dwarfs a .50 BMG round just as a .338 Lapua Magnum dwarfs a 7.62 x 51 NATO cartridge. The reason for its existence was that Russian anti-tank rifles in 12.7 x 108 were not capable to defeat German amour in 1941 so they developed a bigger cartridge. Francis Flinch14:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I just saw your latest delete on 28 Days Later, totally justified. Today I left a message on the talk page about that issue as relates to the rest of the article, which is half unsource, and I would like very much to get your thoughts over there. --Melty girl00:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
It isn't?
You recently removed the "Goofs" section from They Live, noting "this isn't IMDB". True, true, IMDB doesn't have this plot hole, which is why I added it. In fact, I only did so after seeing a "Goofs" section in another movie article here on the wiki. Why do you believe this material is inappropriate? Maury12:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Appreciate your help in trimming the Plot! I didn't get a chance to see the film, so I didn't work on this section. Hopefully the DVD will come out in the U.S. soon enough -- it didn't have so hot of a box office run, disappointingly. Nobody likes sci-fi these days. Not seeing it is another reason why I haven't expanded the critical reaction section. I really think that after that's done, this could be a Good Article. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
No problem, glad to lend a hand. Sci-fi does seem to be on a bit of a downturn sometimes, yet it refuses to go away, which I find reassuring. :-) Hope you see it soon and knock that reaction section into shape! I've had little to do with the article but seeing it reach GA would be nice. Geoff B21:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
A Question
Why did you delete my plot lenghtening for the plot of shaun of the dead. You said that it is a sypnosis, and it did not need steb by step info on the action. But it the article it clearly says Plot. There are many articles on wikipedia that clearly have much longer plots than what I have lengthened Shaun of the deads to. Many people like to be able to know what happens to see if it is worth seeing,(myself one of them) and they get very frustated trying to find the plot on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badger Brock (talk • contribs) 12:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd advise you read the Manual of Style, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Plot. Just because other articles have longer plots does not justify lengthening the plot section for another article, in fact the long plot sections in other articles should be shortened, to fall in line with the Manual of Style. The plot section, like it says in the MoS, is a summary, or synopsis. Not every single thing that happens is described. Try looking at some Good/Featured articles on films on Wikipedia for an example. Geoff B13:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The bolt-action article clearly mentions straight pull bolt action rifles in the lead section, and that link is broken. Mannlicher, Schmidt and Lee all make or have made straight pull bolt action rifles. Also, there's no need to shout, and please stop pushing your 'experience', it only makes you seem desperate. There are people, apart from yourself, who have experience with firearms, and feel no need to constantly point it out in their edit summaries and discussion. Geoff B20:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I have changed the article yet again, this time to bolt action/straight pull, because you are obviously a very stupid, or arrogant cadet who beleives he is always right, and you wont let it go. Zanusi09:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you respond once without pushing your 'qualifications' in everyone's face or insulting me, and actually discuss the matter at hand without using your past as some sort of justification for thinking you automatically know more than anyone else? What happened to using Wikipedia in a civil manner or not at all? Please read the bolt-action article yourself, and you will find straight-pull designs mentioned prominently, and please don't assume anything about what I am. Why must I be a cadet? Because I disagree with you? Even if, for the sake of argument, the L98 is not a straight-pull bolt-action, your statement that there is NO SUCH THING as a straight-pull bolt-action is very strange indeed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_rifle, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steyr-Mannlicher_M1895, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K31 for some examples. Geoff B10:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Mabey you would like to mention the time where I pointed out my experience in my last comment...having trouble? Thats because you can't. Anyway I am bored of you, and this discussion, so I am ending it. Zanusi09:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Please try reading what I write. Can you respond once without pushing your 'qualifications' in everyone's face or insulting me - see? I don't understand what your problem is, except you have a lack of knowledge about firearms, and your reading comprehension level is a little dodgy. There was no impediment to having a civilised discussion, except your arrogance. You were wrong, and can't admit it. You think your past experience makes you infallible, when it obviously does not. You still haven't explained to me why, if there is no such thing as a straight-pull bolt-action rifle, there are multiple articles on Wikipedia (never mind many other places and reputable publications such as Jane's, etc) that describe certain weapons as being straight-pull bolt-action rifles. Geoff B10:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I made a mistake, big deal, stop rubbing it in my face, I don't know where you come from, but Straight pull bolt action is not a term widely used in the UK. I have more of a knowlage about firearms than you, and the reason my spelling is not up to scratch is because of dyslexia. Now my hatred for you is pushing me near to swearing, so I am going to go from here. Zanusi11:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You don't know where I come from, or the extent of my knowledge about firearms, or anything else about me, so please don't assume. I've already corrected you once over a firearms issue, so assuming you know more than me would seem to be the wrong thing to do. I never said anything about your spelling, I mentioned your reading comprehension, they are two different things. If one editor correcting you over one issue of firearms terminology is all it takes to get you hating someone, I suggest you review Wikipedia's policy on civility. Perhaps if you stopped constantly mentioning how much experience you have, you wouldn't take it to heart when someone corrects you, and you wouldn't need to insult them or imply they are younger or have less experience than you? I consider the matter concluded and hope you calm down a little in your future efforts on Wikipedia. Geoff B13:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Metal Slug 4
Man, why the hell did you erase my changes? I was just trying to complete that section. If you don't agree with it, at least change them into something that's more detailed, not just erase them all!!!!
It's simple. Your edits added game advice and trivia to the article. They were either removed or condensed. One small feature of the gameplay does not warrant a section all to itself. You should look up Wikipedia's editing guidelines before getting more 'enraged'. Geoff B04:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
All right, I see what was wrong with it, and I apologise for what I have said. But could you tell me what kind of edition is approperiate? I am an enthusiast of electronic games and that was the first editing I have done, I don't quite understand what the editing guidelines says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kklc1990 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Anachronisms in Steamboy
Hello,
I created the section on anachronisms in Steamboy. I understand why you deleted it, and to be perfectly honest I feel it's unnecessary as well. The reason I started it was because all sorts of pedantic types had dotted the text of the rest of the article with "This was not invented until x", "Y actually died in 1843", "this is physically impossible" and so forth. I tried getting rid of a few but they just kept coming back. I propose giving it a week or so to see if people can get over the idea that this is fiction. If the article survives, all is well. If it gets swamped with pedantry, the Anachronisms get put back in. What do you think? Mon Vier17:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I specifically posted the fansite as a source because that particular site has blown up screen shot from one of the videos that I was unable to get by itself for the citation. The picture is located nerar the bottom of the page in one of the posts. The picture clearly identifies those two new units, and I just wanted to ensure that this info was properly cited.
You seem persistent in removing timesplitetrs4.net from the related links. I'm curious of your reasoning behind this. I've read the article discussion, and the reasons you cite has been grossly taken out of context. I will say this again, I had nothing to do with the site originally appearing in the entry, as you are convinced I'm using the wiki for spam. I, nor any of our staff put it there. In a poll on our site, we asked how people came to find us, and a resounding answer was the wiki. That is when we became aware of us being mentioned, and the post I made that you are referring to as proof of spam intention, was just announcing the fact, and our excitement over it.
And furthermore, we are not a "fansite" as you claim. We have active members of the development team on board interacting with the community, and providing official and confirmed news of the subject, ussually much before any publication does. We do not post rumor and speculation as fact, if that is what you are so concerned about.
I see absolutely no reason now WHY timesplitters4.net is not relevant to the topic, as it's the only place you will find all information directly from the dev team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrkSnpr14 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Nintendo Stars Catalogue
I just wanted to know whether your fact/citation tag you added to the article was due to the specific wording (I picked out "notorious" and "easily overwhelmed" as being unsuitable for an unsourced fact), or whether it was just that you did not believe the statement to be entirely true. Bistromaths09:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
From personal experience, I think it's true, I just thought it might be wise if we had a citation for it! Geoff B10:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Resident Evil - Elements Removed
Gradon:
Hey, sorry to ask here and all, but why did you delete my fact about the Jill following in the BETA? I remember seeing the video and it even said it, it was in a very early BETA, If I find it I will show you so I can rewrite about Jill following Chris, just trying to point out I'm not lying, please reply.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_G0sy2onW2Y
Thats the video, see?
I haven't. There is no vandalism logged on my IP. You are deleting potential contributions to Wikipedia. If you wish to continue reverting pages with no explanation, we should take this disagreement to someone else. 209.226.121.5719:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Fog of War
Capitalizing the term "fog of war" on the Advance Wars: Days of Ruin article is actually necessary. In all previous AW games, and the official Nintendo guides for AW 2 and AW DS, fog of war is always referred to as Fog of War. The reason for this is that Fog of War is a real phenomenon that occurs in the game that prevents the player from seeing the positions of enemy units, while fog of war is the real-world concept of knowing little about your enemy because of a lack of intelligence. The difference is subtle, but it is there. Fog of War is a game exclusive term meant by the developers to differentiate it from the fog of war concept, so the capitals need to be there in order to prevent confusion between the two. Both terms are not interchangeable, and since Fog of War only applies to AW games and will only be used for AW articles, I fail to see any lack of purpose for the capitalization. Comandante42 (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Enfilade and Defilade
Sir, I am informing you that your definition of "defilade" is incorrect. You use the terms "protected from direct exposure to enemy fire." The correct definition of "defilade" is to use natural and artificial obstacles to shield or conceal. Your definition is wrong because long range weapons, i.e. sniper rifles, artillery, missiles, are not defiladed. They usually are out in the open to achieve clear shots and accuracy. We appreciate your corrections, but ask that you see this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NCS-457-026 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The Umbrella Chronicles edits
I changed some of the elements you edited back as they delete important information.
1. "the residence at the Arklay Research Facility" - the residence should at least be mentioned as Rebecca doesn't have to wake up somewhere else in the facility naturally. It's interesting to note she woke up in the residence, not the mansion or laboratory.
2. "the pair sets off to" - sets relates to pair, pair is singular, thus sets instead of set (present tense is used throughout plot summaries)
3. "them" (Death's Door) - I'd say italics are necessary there as we don't know who exactly Wesker refers to by using the word "them". It could be that he just meant him and one of his partners, or several of his partners, or a whole organization.
4. "to leave the town, thus saving her life through the information" - vital to fix the Wesker's Report fiasco that made fanboys think Wesker saved Ada by catching her after the fall.
I was going to say the same thing, but got side-tracked. I was laughing quite hard when I read it. Keep up the good work on reverting vandalism on the page, you beat me to it quite often. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Got to try to stem the tide! I think we should use your plot section rewrite, as it's even shorter, and plot sections are meant to be a short synopsis, after all. I'll stick it in and see how long it survives. :-) Geoff B (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
To Geoff B, please, please stop deleting the plot for the film dog soldiers. If you think that the plot should be a short sypnosis, we can have both a plot and a sypnosis. The plot should be long because people like myself often use wikipedia to gain information on films, and it is very hard to do so when the plot is only about 8 lines long. Please stop deleting the plot and in future please add a sypnosis with your summary of the plot.
There are many films on wikipedia with a long plot and a short sypnosis so please dont delete this one. I will even add you Sypnosis to the article.
User:Badger Brock
Put quite simply, no. Wikipedia's guidelines state that the plot section (there is only one, not a separate plot and synopsis section) is to be a short synopsis, not a detailed step-by-step repetition of the action as it happens on screen. I suggest you read those guidelines before making further edits to Wikipedia. The fact that other articles are in poor state, and have both a plot and synopsis, is of no relevance. I can point out many articles with plenty of stuff that shouldn't be there (original research, POV, etc), that is no justification to include such things in other articles. Geoff B (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
What kind of messed up rule is that, just answer a question: If you wanted to find info about a film would you want a article that had a summarised version of the story and a detailed version or just a summarised version. I dont see the point in even making a article on the film if you can get more info on it by reading the info on the back of the DVD case. Its just annoying. Why dont other people pick up on many other films that have long plots on wikipedia. I could name at least 20 and could find many more easily.
User:Badger Brock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.100.132.143 (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
But it's not about what you or I want, is it? What we want is pretty much irrelevant. Wikipedia has rules. If you want to edit Wikipedia, you have to abide by them. According to the Manual of Style: "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words and should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as a very complicated plot." If you want to extend the plot section, as long as it remains between 400 and 700 words, go ahead, that's fine. Just remember that it's not a step-by-step recitation of everything that happens on screen.
As for the amount of film articles that have very long plots, yes, this is absolutely true, but there are lots of articles on Wikipedia that need editing, and editors only have so much time on their hands, and fans continually add to, or extend the plot sections of films, not understanding words like 'synopsis' and 'summary'. And even a short synopsis contains more detail than the back of the DVD case, please don't exaggerate. Geoff B (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Look, I know you're exaggerating, because I have the DVD too. If you want to expand the plot section, as long as you stay within the guidelines and it doesn't become a step-by-step repetition of what happens on screen, that's fine. According to WIkipedia's guidelines, you can't put in a massive plot section detailing every little action. If you don't like it, go and change those guidelines. Geoff B (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
What did you do that for?!? I'm just trying to make a nice JA2 page, I don't see what you could have against that? alot of gamesites here have "game locations" described. I've never edited anything before, but i think it is a great game, and the current wiki is way to short. give me some time!
Hey bud, rather than starting an edit war over content, I started a new discussion on the topic on the sniper talk page. Lets try to hash out a solution there rather than continuously reverting each other. I look forward to quality dicussion. 74.142.88.126 (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering why you re-added Endless Ocean to it? I see no proof it's part of the series. Similar gameplay doesn't automatically make it Everblue. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course not, I was pointing out real as in films that DID exist... but fair enough to your change, its somewhat clearer but did you have to imply I was stupid in your reason? Stabby Joe (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, you beat me to it! By the time I'd written all that post on the talk page, you'd removed the offending stuff before I could :) Telsa(talk)11:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Have a look here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28links%29, the bit on internal linking. I may have actually overdone it when reducing the amount of links TBH (from the manual of style Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection.), but I think a little less is better than far too much. Feel free to drop a few in here and there, by all means, I often get carried away when pruning back. Geoff B (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You can put "2008" in the first sentence if you want. I suppose that I've used "upcoming" instead to indicate that a film has not yet come out. For example, identifying it as a 2008 film doesn't make it clear if it's already come out or not (at a first glance, that is). In addition, "upcoming 2008 film" did not sound very smooth to me, so I opted to mention the release date at the end of the lead section. When the film comes out, "upcoming" can be changed to the appropriate release year. I'm not really strict with this line of thinking, though -- I don't mind others' approaches, but I suppose this is mine as far as articles on future films go. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I got it. I had a feeling that I wasn't addressing your point in my typing... :) I've written the release years in parentheses to establish to the reader a point in time for the sake of comparison. For example, 100 years from now, it's doubtful that most readers would be familiar with any of the films. Identifying the release years of films that have influenced this one establishes a kind of scope. As you can tell, these films are the late 1970s and early 1980s, films that Marshall grew up watching. It helps provide a timeline without needing to visit a new article, not just in this instance, but also for instances of knowing the development of a film. For example, we can write, "After completing XXXXX (2003), the director began penning the script for what would be XXXXX2." It shows points in time, basically. It's an easy detail to overlook because films can feel familiar to you or me, recognizing it from a few years ago to two generations ago. Hope that clarifies matters. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Battle Isle vs Advance Wars Controversy
Battle Isle I, II, and III have a close resemblance to Advance Wars. The stats, the feel, the looks, and the gameplay are pretty much the same. Check out Battle Isle I and see the similarities. Deny Ignorance!
Wait a second, are you seriously suggesting because you have a private theory that one ripped off the other because they are 'pretty much the same' (according to you), this is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia? Geoff B (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Jujutsu techniques, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Jujutsu techniques. Fayenatic(talk)12:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Biohazard: Degeneratio plot
Woah... that was quick... some poeple just kept editing... in did the neares DIRECT Japanese translation i was limited to... and someone removes the translation and replaces it wil "Umbrella has fallen" or somat like that...which wasn't even mentioned in the whole site.OsirisV (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
So now... because of the constant clean-ups by different users, and some not checking the history for a better version...it has since been removed... probably because it was changed into a bit on info about Raccoon City and Umbrella.OsirisV (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
28 Weeks Later
I thought the plot could be more informative if the helicopter scene at the end of the film is included, so I added it, but you reversed it. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puzzledstudent (talk • contribs) 00:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
This bit? "Another 28 days later, we hear someone calling for help over the radio of Flynn’s helicopter, which is empty and abandoned in a field." You don't directly address the reader, because this is an encyclopaedia. Geoff B (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed you largely stayed out of the last edit war over the plot summary at A Simple Plan, but you still seem involved in the page. I will be the first to agree that the plot summary as it stands is too long for the article, but restoring a word-for-word copy of the version that sparked the previous edit war, as you and Blaxthos have done, is likely to serve only to inflame the situation. Yours struck me as one of the calmer voices the last time around, so I'd be grateful if you would encourage some rational discussion of this issue. I think what's probably in order here is a compromise: the two versions being fought over are both imperfect; and the best solution probably lies in the middle. Either way, undiscussed reversion and counter-reversion is only going to get the page locked and people warned or blocked, so I would be grateful if you could lead the way in moving away from that behaviour. Thanks, Happy‑melon09:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I was just wondering why you have deleted my recent addition to said article. I added the list of characters available in the game and you simply deleted it. I was merely trying to inform people what playable characters there are in the game. So why on earth you deleted it, i have no idea. Please explain your reasoning Geoff.
Stupid Birk (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Ahh okay, my mistake i'm new on here. Trying to find something to do. Do you know of anywhere i can find something to do??
Thanks
Stupid Birk (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Just look at the pages of whatever games/films/books you like and you'll probably find something to do, spell checking or rewriting, updating review scores, creating new sections for articles, creating new articles for games that don't have pages, and so on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games - video games wikiproject, feels free to ask around there, they always have stuff that needs doing. Best of luck in editing Wikipedia. Message me if you have any other questions. Geoff B (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, unless the Attribution Cabal made an exception to Wikipeida's sourcing policies, fansites are still not considered reliable sources :p. As the problem with 90% of all Wikipedia articles about fictional subjects, the article lacks legit third party sources. Whats your take on it? -- ShadowJester07 ►Talk 00:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
You can take it :-p If I do not post on the article's AFD by tomorrow night, please leave me a memo on my talk page. Thanks and good luck :-) -- ShadowJester07 ►Talk 06:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Rogue Trooper (2006 video game), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://fr.xfire.com/games/rt/Rogue_Trooper. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Yes, I think it might as well be moved in, it's not got much real world commentary but it's better than what's there now. Geoff B (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I finally managed to complete the 'critical reception' portion RE4 character article... complete with references and what not. I also rewrote the page's lead, since it is no longer a list, but an article :-p. Now to hunt down info about the Character's development...after a beer or four and some video games :p Please look over the changes and tell me what you think :) Thanks again. -- ShadowJester07 ►Talk 08:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, it's been awhile! In case you did not recognize me, I am ShadowJester, I changed my User Name some time over the summer. Good to see you back around these parts. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 20:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Geoff B/Archive 1 : You've received this message as you are listed as a WikiProject HorrorParticipant. As you may have noticed, WikiProject Horror has suffered from a lack of direction and coordination of late. A suggestion on how to improve the Project and maintain it as a viable resource has been placed up for discussion here. As a member of the Project, your voice is valued and your input is requested. Thank you, hornoir(talk)23:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
re: Anon IP on Characters in Resident Evil 4
Hey, I've mentioned this editor on your request for page protection, and also spoke about it on User_talk:SoWhy. SoWhy chose to fully protect the page, when it only needed semi-protection. Now we have no protection. But it should be cleared up soon. Belasted (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, certainly. Thanks for the help, and that goes for Shawnpoo, Lychosis, Bridies, Starscream1007 and Mfield too. Geoff B (talk) 10:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
XMORPHEUSX
Him, a possible sockpuppet, and an IP have been doing the exact same edits to Resident Evil Zero and Resident Evil. They seem to all change the size, replace templates with its coding, and generalise plots (ie. Magnum with Pistol) along with creating innacuracies. I have warned the IP, who claims that it is not his problem if his edits are bad (!?). The same IP has also spammed another user (see: this) with a very long message laughing at him.OsirisV (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
They do seem to be the same user. Not sure if it is sockpuppetry, as the user is only using one name/IP at a time, but if they ever start to use multiple identities to edit at the same time then that is definitely sockpuppetry. Geoff B (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe that Ozwell Spencer's fate is an important fact to be mentioned in the Resident Evil 5 article. He has been made a pivotal character in every RE game since the first, and there are sources mentioning that there are many fans who are saddened by his abrupt, unexpected demise. [2]EgraS (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that my plot summary was way too long, but the segment in its current state doesn't flow very well, and I think it needs revision. Agent Chieftain (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Making up warnings
User 97.106.48.181, or a least some of the first few numbers (97.106) is going around and giving out warnings to people even though he/she doesn't have the power to do so.
Every report I've seen on FBI shootout states Mireles' arm was disabled by gunfire. In addition to the gun zone, I've also seen it in "the Ayoob files", which reports that his arm was practically turned "inside out". Mireles really stands out as the hero of the event, not only because he finished off the bad guys, but also because he was able to operate his pump shotgun one handed without any training on how to do so.
Try finding a report that says his arm WASN'T disabled by fire.
I'll take out the part about weather or not the agents who didn't make it to the shootout could have made a difference, but that fact that they had better weapons then the ones who did participate does deserve mention.
I think you were the one who put things "out of order" by making the point of how McNiel had trouble reloading his revolver BEFORE he fired it. That shouldn't be put in until he actually needed to reload. Also the fact that he was shot while trying to reach his shotgun in the back seat is in both the gun zone and Ayoob files report. It sounds pretty solid..
Ayoob was also the one who made the point on backup guns.
You are basing way too much of your info soley on one source. Furthermore, you don't need to repeat it word for word.
Finally, sources can be cited with links or reference tags. If you want to convert my links into reference tags, then fine. Just don't remove the whole thing over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.180.16 (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
You're basing your edits on two sources, neither of whom seem to be a reliable source. The Gun Zone report is filled full of inaccurate language (e.g. Mireles, however, was determined that this would not be an option. With great difficulty, he levitated himself from the ground...) so either TGZ is full of shit or SA Mireles had supernatural or superhuman powers. Ayoob can't even get minor details correct.
"Mireles really stands out as the hero of the event" is your POV, which seems to have been taken whole from Ayoob and TGZ, and is contaminating the article.
If you knew anything about firearms and terminal ballistics, you'd know that .223 bullets are incapable of turning a limb 'inside out'. So once again, your sources are wrong, or guilty of hyperbole.
You are basing way too much of your info soley on one source., not true, I am using two sources, one the actual FBI inquiry, and two, a book by a writer who, unlike Ayoob, checked his facts. Additionally, check out this 'conclusion' from TGZ which praises the book I have used as a source, calling it 'truly remarkable', and 'a truly magnificent achievement'. Geoff B (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
You need to learn how to recognize a figure of speech. The gun zone didn't literally mean "levitated" and Ayoob didn't literally mean "inside out". It doesn't take too much to understand that "levitated" simply means he got up and a "inside out" means his arm suffered a devastating injury (keep in mind Ayoob actually talked about the event with Mireles)
Anyway, I was using multiple sources, the gun zone, the ayoob files, and the Firearms Tactical Institute report by Dr. Anderson.
The debate between Ayoob and Dobson is well known. Just because Dobson disputes Ayoob doesn't prove he's right.
Do you know if you can use the GameCube controller on Resident Evil 4 for Wii? I just reverted an edit of someone saying otherwise. I tried to find sources for this, but could not find anything reliable. Thanks. Belasted (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
May seem silly, but I've noticed you've edited some of my changes so they read better (as well as stupid typos and such that I make). Just leaving this message as a thank you. Earisu♥|Talk23:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Not trying to be nitpicky, but officially it is actually spelt S.T.A.R.S.. I'm not trying to put periods as a space of every acronym or I would have done it with BSAA (which is officially BSAA, so I didn't...). Not that it matters since they read the same but I never heard of Wiki not allowing it. :] Earisu♥|Talk11:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Yep, it is in the games, no argument there, but on Wikipedia we don't break up acronyms. It's in the manual of style, here. Geoff B (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Characters in Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû21:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
97.106.etc insists upon adding and re-adding his own opinion into the articles without sources, compounding this with personal insults. Geoff B (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I played the game. You didn't. Wesker killed Lisa Trevor. That's a fact. By your logic, we need proof that Wesker killed Sergei and shut down the Red Queen. There's no source after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.54.153 (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
GOD DAMN IT, Not this again. Just so you know, I have an account too. I guess being blocked for 24 hours didn't teach you anything. I guess we need a source to prove that Wesker killed Sergei. After all, that's simply your opinion.
I'm not in the habit of starting edit wars. I'll have a look for an additional source now, thank you for notifying me. Geoff B (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Crytek UK
Yo, Geof you seem intrested in Timesplitters related articles so why don't you consider joining the Crytek UK Wikiproject; we need more people (so far it is just me and the founder). Cheers in advance (if you actually join) -) 'The Ninjalemming'19:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't usually join projects, but I'll keep an eye on the page and will lend a hand on the Timesplitters' pages, certainly. I know a fewof them could really use some improvement... Geoff B (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Characters in Resident Evil 3: Nemesis. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Oo7565 (talk) 04:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Dance Dance Revolution
FYI, a great deal of information on almost all the DDR articles need citations. It's something I'm working on. But in an attempt to not jump to any conclusion about your behavior I'll just say I know you won't go littering all the articles with Fact tags or else I'll have to start a cleanup process on it's own merit. And because no one seems to have been decent enough to say so, welcome to WikiProject video games. æronphonehome09:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not something I do a lot of, no. I have edited the article before, and I didn't remember the section in question, so tagged it. Thanks for the welcome. Geoff B (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Weskers deathy thing
(damn I hate this argument, some people have started to get a little angry) is there evidence that he died, considering Resi 1, when he died but was back later having come back, or resi 5 it self were he manages to survive falling off a cliff and keep Jill alive as well. He did dodge the RPGs by the way, even though the splash damage would have killed a normal human, but so would have floating in lava. Bye, oh and hi. =)'The Ninjalemming'16:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi again Ninjalem. I don't like this issue either. Wesker did die in RE, but it was retconned to be intentional and have him surviving in Code: Veronica (IIRC). So if we look at the RE article, it just says he dies. Because in the game, he does. Later on in the series, he comes back, so we include that. If Wesker returns in RE6 or 7 we can change the article. Geoff B (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The House of the Dead 2
You really are quick about editing, aren't you? Anyways, it was a big deal about how "the voice acting was terrible." Everyone says it. Call me a weasel but it's true. Go anywhere and it's sure to be mentioned. CheeseDeluxe (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
When it comes to editing I am quite nippy, yes. "Everyone says it", eh? Like who? Care to cite some reliable sources? Yes? No? If yes, you can put 'em in the article! Geoff B (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Turistas
The comments I added about plot flaws seem important to include in the article. I would think no references to them are needed because anyone that watches the movie can verify. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:NOR. Besides that, these are the sort of minor errors that sites like IMDb cover but we do not, because they're trivial. Someone researching the film, its plot, its production, how it performed critically and commercially etc isn't going to care if there's a few goofs. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Geoff B (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
IMHO WP:NOR taken literally at every instance would preclude anyone writing the Plot like I did, because it is based in my personal recollection. It seems to me that WP:NOR was issued having in mind people who might abuse Wiki by posting undisguised attempts to promote their own theories of fancy, possibly even with financial gain in mind. The comments I posted satisfy the very important criteria of verifiability and among other things they would perhaps help in understanding why the film was unsuccessful at the box office. Though I am not very experienced as a Wiki editor, I do use it a lot, and as a user would consider such information as plot flaws important and enlightening about the film. Your dismissal of it as trivia would make sense were I reporting what the actors had for breakfast any given day, the brand of champagne corked at wrap up, or what color the light technician was wearing. Plot flaws in the appreciation of a movie are not irrelevant information about the movie, any way you try to put it. This is IMHO. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
So, would you agree with including the plot flaws? BTW, you edited the Plot, smoothing the text and clearing up some unnecessary details, and it is quite OK. Reference to the archer however drops in from the blue, so I'll put in a few extra words. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Everyone who is revert warring over Wesker's fate is getting their last warning. If you revert again in this long-running revert war, I will block you for 24 hours. Please discuss it on the talk page and refrain from reverting again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
If you read PaPiRiCoSuAvE's talk page recently... it seems he has admitted to being XMORPHEUSX and claims he doesn't want to edit Wikipedia any more. However, he still claims that when people revert his edits, they are exactly the same... I guess he hasn't used the history tab to compare versions.--OsirisV (talk) 09:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
He seems to be a bit confused. He's not used his accounts abusively yet IIRC (for example, making three reversions with one and then swapping to the other account and making more reversions to dodge the 3RR), he's admitted they are both his accounts so it's not really a sockpuppet problem, but he doesn't seem to understand that his edits aren't helping. He's been told this plenty of times before, quite frankly I have no idea how to make him understand. Geoff B (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Hot Fuzz
I thought so too. I think the guideline's intent refers to when a cast section is not included or if its further in the article. I don't see why it should be mentioned twice when its directly in the next section. If it's discussed later in the article, then I think the character (actor) format should be fine. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
(Not Hot Fuzz but close) My belief is the Three Colours page spells it that way because the article is written in UK English. Roger Ebert spells it "Three Colors" when he reviews it. Am I to think he doesn't know his craft? In general, changing spelling from US to UK (or vice-versa) is not considered productive on wikipedia. And apparently you shouldn't change links to working redirects either to canonicalize them (I didn't know that until today, found it out brushing up on the guidelines to see why you might have done what you did). Bollinger (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Now you have 'The three colours of Cornetto are a reference to'. I'm not British, but at least to an American, the three colors are a single item. The sentence is basically 'the (use of) three colors of Cornetto are a reference to', which is wrong. Before it was 'the (use of) three colors of Cornetto is a reference to', which is right. Additionally, the new sentence is awkward in that it tries the three colors as three separate things (hence the 'are') but then says they are 'a reference', which is a single thing. How about we go to 'the use of three colours of Cornetto is a reference to' or go to 'the three colours of Cornetto are references to'? Bollinger (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
In general, changing spelling from US to UK (or vice-versa) is not considered productive on wikipedia. - Except to make sure it's all one or the other on that page! I never even noticed it wasn't in UK spelling until today.
You didn't make them all the same, I had to fix flavour. This, combined with your justification 'the wiki article for the Three Colours trilogy spells it 'colour' so I edited it to be in line' did not lead me to conclude that the reason was for consistency, but because you were trying to make it a proper name or change it to avoid a redirect.Bollinger (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Roger Ebert spells it "Three Colors" when he reviews it. Am I to think he doesn't know his craft? - Don't get snippy. Ebert could be the most dyslexic bastard that ever graced a spellchecker and still 'know his craft'. He uses American usage because he's American. If the page is in UK spelling, as it is/should be, then it should be spelled 'colours' regardless of the Kieslowski article title. The fact that both the Three Colours article and the Three Colours (Cornetto) article are both in UKEng is just a coincidence. Fair enough on the leaving links to working redirects alone, didn't know that, but it doesn't make sense to do that when changing it means the article is then using the same English variant all the way through (that's how it is supposed to be IIRC). I don't think the leaving working redirects alone-rule tops the use one variant of English per page-rule. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. Good editing, sir. Geoff B (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think either rule tops the other. But it's not really consistent yet, so changing one instance was odd. I guess I'll make the final fix (at least to my American eye).Bollinger (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Reasons for changing "Project Zero 4"-Page
Please name the reasons for you deleting the section "Players claiming their rights". It is an essential step concerning the game.
Thanks in advance:
My reasons were given in the edit summary. Basically, fan petitions/sites are not notable unless covered by a source. So if IGN, Gamespot, Eurogamer etc were to mention it on their site, we could use their report and then add that to the 'Release' section of the Project Zero 4 page. It needs some media attention, basically. I'd like to see PZ4 come out in Europe, I am sympathetic, but it's against Wikipedia's rules to add things like the opinions of fans. Geoff B (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you really think that it was about the opinion of the fans? I just described actual circumstances, maybe there was one line, yeah, with something like "who want to experience its atmosphere" etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.243.140.190 (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Wanting the game released is an opinion. It's a point of view. That entire section was from/representing the POV of a group of people. Now, if a reliable source reports that POV, it can be included. Otherwise, Wikipedia would quickly fill up with all kinds of rubbish added by anyone who feels like adding anything to any page. I wish it could be included, I'd quite like to play the game myself. Geoff B (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry about a thing
'Coz every little thing is going to be all right. I cannot tell you how many times I used to revert something without examining it too closely. Some-odd bitch-slaps later, I've learned. Your mistake is an easy one to make. :) - Arcayne(cast a spell)02:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Article looks much better now Geoff B. Thanks Dude. 3 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.65.151.27 (talk)
Providing links to development diaries allows a Wikipedia user to easily continue research on particular aspects of the game without forcing all visitors to the Hearts of Iron III Wikipedia article to sift through an extremely long article. These links are not advertising. They are an efficient way of keeping the article relatively lean while simultaneously providing visitors to the article the choice of continued research. The video showcases also provide with visitor easy access to in game details. All of these links do not detract from article, but rather enhance it considerably. These lists have been a part of the article for months. These links have been added by several different users. They are good alternative to what would otherwise be an extremely long article if the information from the links was instead written in the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fritzp50 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
if the information from the links was instead written in the article itself - that's exactly what the article is supposed to be. Try reading the link I put on your talk page. Geoff B (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The same IP was causing a ruckus on various Resi articles today, and was temporarily blocked. Nevertheless, this issue has become bothersome and will require proper attention. I see that you and Lychosis are working on case for a check-user report. I can try to find evidence on my behalf, but It's finals week at my school, and I will probably be busy till Saturday. I'll be back off and on. Unttil then, good luck. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 19:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm gonna start putting together that checkuser report over the next little while. What do you think of what I've changed the wording in RE5 to? It just seems unnecessary to say he was killed and decapitated. LychosisT/C12:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it may be necessary to put 'killed' in there, but having both 'killed' and 'decapitated' is redundant. To minimise conflict, let's stick with your change, and see how that goes. As soon as the fanboys see the word 'killed' they go mad. Geoff B (talk) 12:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest, I was arguing before to change it to 'defeated' rather than 'killed', but it was more of an "it's still accurate and will stir up less disruption" way, what with the fanboys getting all riled up. I do think we might have reached a good one with the current version though, at least for a while. LychosisT/C13:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, could you take a look here? I've started up a subpage for putting this all together before I submit it. Do you know any more IPs or accounts than I have there? Thanks! LychosisT/C13:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I've spoken to this user, and made an offer on their talk page. If they can adhere to the following, I'm agreeing to postpone filing the report:
What the hell is the problem with both of you? Why do you care so much about me? Why are you trying to have been banned indefinitely? Geoff is just as nasty as I am. He's so obsessed with me. Look, I'm sorry about being nasty to Lychosis. Geoff on the other hand.
I give up. You want to ban me than go on and do it. I really don't care anymore. By the way, Geoff. I'm flattered that you obsess about me day and night but I assure you that the feeling is not mutual. I have another account but the name is not relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.41.249 (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's address your points one at a time:
Why are you trying to have been banned indefinitely? - No-one's trying to have you banned indefinitely.
Geoff is just as nasty as I am. - constant personal insults, versus the odd acerbic remark? The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
He's so obsessed with me. - How narcissistic of you.
Geoff on the other hand. - Me on the other hand what? You didn't finish that sentence.
You want to ban me than go on and do it. - It's not up to us.
I really don't care anymore. - You quite obviously do, or you wouldn't be leaving messages on my talk page.
By the way, Geoff. I'm flattered that you obsess about me day and night but I assure you that the feeling is not mutual. - You're posting messages on my talk page. And I'm the one who obsesses about you, right? Right. :-) Geoff B (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, where else am I going to address the issues? You keep talking about me to other members. Clearly, you are obsessed with me. As for the "Fine, I'll stop. But only because you said please and because you are not a jerk like Geoff." comment. I meant to post it on Lychosis' page. Anyway, it's good to know you don't have the power to block me. :D
Have a good life. As you say in Britain, CHEERS! ;)
Clearly, you are obsessed with me. - He says, as he runs off and throws a tantrum, reverting a page before reverting himself because I proved him wrong, or just because he can't hack editing.
Hmmm... It appears as if most disruptive activity on the Resi pages has dramatically gone down. I take it you were able to take care of the situation while I was gone? :p -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 21:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I believe his accounts were blocked without our intervention (PrisonBreak Guy, SyphonFilter1987, DavidCarter etc) for sending threatening emails or other such stupidity. He is still editing as an IP, but less frequently. Geoff B (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I reported the IP to 3RR. I swear, almost every fucking summer there is an edit war on an article. While I does not really bother me, it is really annoying. Regardless, thanks for all your help these few weeks. Hopefully we can actually start working on Resi articles soon :p -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 09:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I left a severe warning on one of the IP pages, [3], basically threatening to contact their ISP. It would appreciate it if you could file a report. I may not be around here much for a week due to medical reasons, but if you need my help with a warning/report, feel free to email me - there is a link on my UserPage. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 17:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Just letting you know that I should be back at full strength soon. Hopefully this wasn't a very bad week in terms of edit warring and vandalism. How many IP's did you get while I was gone? ;-) - StarScream1007 ►Talk 04:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Although Marcus spelled his virus with a lower-case "t", later virologists used a capital-letter. It should be noted that Marcus used the noun "tyrant" for the viruses name, whilst upon the creation of the Tyrant-series B.O.W., the name was turned into a "proper noun".
The difference is that the original name "tyrant" was used to refer to the virus as "an absolute ruler who governs without restriction who is harsh, cruel and oppressive." It was later turned into a "proper noun" (a noun with capitalisation) to refer to the Tyrant-series B.O.W. and vica verca.
Some files in early games (specifically the original) capitalised virus, forming T-Virus or t-Virus. These spellings are considered improper due to "virus" not being a "proper noun" in that context.
Check my IP address and compare with Miyahon's. I just agree with he/she that there are multiple merchants. God, you really are a slow learner. No surprises there.
Yeah, but is that supposed to be enough proof? Can't I agree with some other person? Everytime I disagree with you, you cry like a little girl to the administrators. Like I said, check my IP range with Miyahon and you will see I'm not that person.
Cheers. ;)
I think you mean, every time you edit war, abuse multiple accounts, insult editors, vandalise articles and so on and so forth, and I report you for it, you get blocked. Geoff B (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I never vandalized articles. Daymee did. He claimed there was no proof William Birkin died even though the character was in a train when it blew up. And you've been blocked twice for edit warring. You are no saint either.
By the way, I'm disappointed that you gave in to pressure from the Albert Wesker fanboys. The character was DECAPITATED by two rockets while sinking in lava. Anyway, I'll respect the consensus.
I was just wondering why you undid my edit to the resident evil 4 page. It was long, and had quite a bit of information in it. I was wondering if it was because I put it in the wrong spot, if I did something in it wrong, or if it was because it was unneeded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.13.197 (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
HIM again...
It has become apparent to me that User:XBLACKXVIPERX is making the exact same edits as User:XMORPHEUSX and his sockpuppets, and on the same pages. For some reason, me asking him that if he is a sock, he should stop, made him suddenly believe I was a stalker and sent in a pointlessly long message to me on how evil I am and that he has the right to edit pages freely... curiously in a very similar manner to XMORPHEUSX. XBLACKVIPERX also makes mention that he and XMORPHEUSX know each other. I suspect he is a sockpuppet and have added in the appropriate template to his talk page. Funnily enough, he argues that I am an admin due to a limited IQ. Though, looking at his use of the fictitious word " I'am", he has no idea what half of the stuff he says is correct. I shall await further "fan male" on my talk page. No doubt he his harassing me, as opposed to me harassing him.-- OsirisV (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I think a quick sockpuppet report would probably get him blocked. Exact same behaviour, excact same edits. Geoff B (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
You have violated the three-revert rule on James_Gunn_(filmmaker). Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearedhallmonitor (talk • contribs) Sep 8, 2007
