Jump to content

User talk:Geoff B/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Heatseeker (Video Game)

Why did you delete the Aircraft, Vessels etc. in the heatseeker. I have a heatseeker video game. i always play it for 2 years. You change it back. I work hard from it for 3 hours —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filz Patrick Dureza (talk • contribs) 02:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Such content is game guide material and cannot be included in Wikipedia. Geoff B (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Three-revert warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Red Faction. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --McGeddon (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverts are from an anon IP with a long record (on other IP addresses) of stalking me and reverting my changes. I do not seek to excuse my reverts, but reporting the IP has achieved nothing in the past. Geoff B (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Appreciated, but sitting there for twenty minutes reverting back and forth is not the way to resolve this, it just spams the page history. You should have given the user a 3RR warning as soon as they started reverting. --McGeddon (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
For future and current reference, is there any way to get rid of users like this? Meaning vandals that just want to fill articles with their own crap? Do you report them or just leave the pages because they have more time than you? Eik Corell (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
There's no way to get rid of them permanently AFAIK. Geoff B (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Slow reverts should be enough; perhaps a bit of WP:PROTECT if they're persistent. Keep calm and carry on. --McGeddon (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Trace Memory

Hi Geoff B. Just something quick to point out. I'm not going to edit your post for you, obviously, but here you meant "[...] because everywhere else uses Another Code", right? Dreaded Walrus t c 23:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Why I don't usually participate in move discussions, reason one. Thanks, DW. Geoff B (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Heatseeker (Video Game)

I undid your revision after reviewing WP:NOTGUIDE and found that a list of vehicles in the game doesn't seem to fit as guidebook material. I don't see why there is a problem with listing the vehicles. Frmatt (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's game guide material. Not allowed under WP:NOTGUIDE. Geoff B (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful for me as I continue to learn if you could specify which area of WP:NOTGUIDE it falls under as I seem to read it differently than you. Also, my apologies for marking it as vandalism, that was a click in the wrong spot on my behalf. Frmatt (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That's okay. This bit: Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style, owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes.[5] If you are interested in a "how-to" type of manual, you may want to look at wikiHow or our sister project, Wikibooks. Lists of levels, weapons, bonuses, etc are game guide material. Geoff B (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks a lot! Frmatt (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The mischievous IP that keeps vandalizing

Obviously the user is just out to harass, so maybe you should try some of the stuff mentioned in Wikipedia:Harassment#Dealing_with_harassment. Report them again perhaps? I know it's not exactly harassment per that section if there are no privacy violations, but it's pretty obvious that they do this just to annoy you. 12:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Might do. I've reported it a few times before, but usually just as vandalism, 3RR, etc. Geoff B (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Bite your tongue and go with slow reverts, if the edits aren't massively controversial. They're having to manually check several articles, while you're just doing one-click reverts from your watchlist; they'll get bored first. --McGeddon (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, watch out for 3RR. If you've reverted something twice, let another editor catch it the next time. Most of these articles are on my watchlist now. --McGeddon (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Will do, cheers. Geoff B (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Zombie Apocalypse (video game)

A tag has been placed on Zombie Apocalypse (video game) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. TankTrivia (talk) 11:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Surely it's just as notable as any other PSN or XBLA game? Geoff B (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

The correct spelling is "Vandalising". Not "Vamdalising". ;) [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.138.177 (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Really? Geoff B (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I suggest you work on that and your sarcasm. Have a good night my friend. ;) --70.126.138.177 (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

I think we had a misunderstanding on the Double Tap page. The movie had nothing to do in the development of the concept, but the concept was a plot point in the movie. I'm still fairly new here, so if there's a line in regards to what is significant enough to be included in a See Also section. Doc Quintana (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. While Zombieland does feature double taps and makes explicit reference to it, the film has nothing to do with the technqiue itself, or shooting. It's a fairly one-way relationship. Additionally, the double tap technique has been featured prominently in games, films, and books. If there's a link to double tap in the Zombieland article, that's all you need. Otherwise, what you end up with in the double tap article is a list of media which feature double tapping, sometimes not even explicitly, sometimes not even at all, added by users who sometimes feel rather strongly about it. And then it mutates into a 'list of games/films/books that feature double tapping', which is trivia. Can you imagine if we had a list of 'films that feature snipers/sniping' in the sniper article? It usually gets very messy. Geoff B (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for clearing that up, I apologize for the reverts and I completely agree: I could see a separate article regarding "films that feature snipers as main characters" or what have you, but the list would be too long to be included on the main article. Doc Quintana (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
No worries, best of editing luck to you, sir. Geoff B (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Pandemonium

Thanks for your edits to the Pandemonium series. I've been meaning to sort through the garbage for a while now, but I lost to games years ago, so I can't check some things. I'll keep an eye on it and make sure no-one reverted your edits. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 09:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, game articles fill up with trivia and guide material faster than any one person can remove it! Geoff B (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of creatures in the Resident Evil series

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of creatures in the Resident Evil series. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of creatures in the Resident Evil series (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Bayonetta

Thank you for reverting that section blanker. That's actually the section that needs the most help, but I'm sure someone will improve it after the game is released in Japan tomorrow! --an odd name 22:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Glad to be of assistance! Geoff B (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My reply to your comment.

And you still haven't learned that your sarcasm sucks big time. I suggest you work on that. ;)

Still a lot better than your editing... Geoff B (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
My editing is a LOT better than your pathetic jokes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.139.254 (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

One of the very few things your editing is better than. In fact, it might be the only thing. Geoff B (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Geoff, while I can't tell who started this for sure (IP claims you, though it looks like he fired the initial salvo), there's no need to escalate, as it just leads to more work cleaning up and checking articles for vandalism. Please, don't bite the newcomers. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
He's not a newcomer. He's a multiple IP user and sockpuppeteer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/97.106.54.189, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/97.106.44.244, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/97.106.54.153, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/97.106.41.249 etc and a few editing names. I think he was initially blocked (permanently?) from Wikipedia for sending threatening emails or something. Here's an old report of mine. Geoff B (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
If that's the case, report him, don't bother antagonizing him further. It's a waste of time, encourages him to behave badly, and it makes you look worse (after all, he'll switch IPs; I'm assuming you're fairly attached to your username). --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I recognize I'm hoping for a utopian ideal, where not behaving like a jerk means people aren't jerks to you. Call me a hopeless idealist. :-) --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, at least you're wearing your heart on your sleeve! Yes, I know I should report him, but I've done it a few times. Can't be bothered ATM, as he no longer vandalises articles (much), he just leaves the odd silly edit summary. Geoff B (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocking Mr. "rv v" once and for all

It's kind of gotten boring dealing with this month after month. Perhaps it's time that his entire subnet gets blocked? Month in, month out, he comes back. I should assume good faith, but he's a troll at this point. Eik Corell (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thinking the same thing. Wondering where to take it. AIV doesn't seem to fit, as he just pops up again as another IP. Long-term abuse, I dunno, as his edits aren't 'technically' vandalism I suppose, so I don't know if he's eligible. I don't know if there is or ever was an account associated with it. Geoff B (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
There is. I went through the submissions and traced the info he's adding to all of these articles to a registered user who was blocked for using these sockpuppet IPs to force his edits through after his main account got a warning for it. You wanna find out his original account, just go through all articles and all the different IPs. I did this a few months back, but can't really be bothered with this again. I think I found it by searching for when the "rv v" thing first popped up. Eik Corell (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Righto, I'll search for him. Any particular articles I should focus on? I've forgot which ones this started with! Geoff B (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

J. Z. Knight article edit warring

I would really appreciate it if you could help resolve a long-running edit war on this article. I can't really wrap my head around why it has gone so far, so I'm trying to get them to stop attacking and distrusting each other. As I stated there, I'm not very versed in normal Wiki articles, so I think you would be a good mediator here. Eik Corell (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Bit of a mess, isn't it. Got a plan in mind? We could ask them to agree to take a break for 24-48 hours, we go over the article, and then they can bring up the stuff they want included on the talk page and work on integrating it. Geoff B (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

COD: World at War

Good work on making the plot shorter. Much appreciated. I did some small research into the size of plots on articles.

COD 4: 4,509
COD 5: 4,484
COD 6: 5,601

Halo 1: 3,244
Halo 2: 4,539
Halo 3: 4,381

This is the number of characters in the plot section excluding captions and inline citations. I did a reading for COD 5 prior to your edit, so it should be 88+15+79 less now... 4,484 - 182 = 4,302. That's smaller than both Halo 2 and Halo 3 now! Hopefully this should prevent it from failing GA and FA reviews, because in the past users have complained at the size of the plot. I'll keep a close eye on it and stop users from expanding it. Cheers once again. Jolly Ω Janner 18:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You did the majority of it, good stuff. Just got to make sure they don't balloon again... Geoff B (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • You reckon it's ready for another GA nomination? At first glance, there aren't any major problems: everything's cited and images all have sufficients licenses, it's up-to-date and I even did something from the previous GAN request and re-organised the reception section. Jolly Ω Janner 21:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks alright doesn't it. The DLC section might need a trim, I dunno if all the detail is needed, but the article looks much better. Geoff B (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Endless Ocean 2 article changes

Thanks for your work on that article - you might have read on its talk page that I was unsure what to do with those lists. I'm rather glad they're gone, to be honest, they didn't look to fit on the page. With any luck, the article should expand a little more when the English versions come out in the next couple of months. Thanks again! Cipher (Talk) 19:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Similar lists are added to the EO page from time to time, they don't really belong on Wikipedia but people enthusiastic about the game think they do. Even when sourced they're still a very game guide-ish section of trivia. Geoff B (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Socks

Not sure, although it does appear similar. Definitely need to keep an eye on it and see if it is. Probably could request a checkuser. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Chivas Regal

Hi Geoff, I hope you don't mind, but I've reverted some negative comments made on the Chivas Regal article, which I believe are harsh. For instance, comments such as Chivas is "unremittingly dull" are perfectly valid on whisky blogs etc, but I don't think it's fair to place the comments of one author as a key point within brand history. Also, it's asserted that Strathisla single malt forms only a small element of the Chivas blend, but no reference is cited (does anyone outside of the company really know?). I think it's fairer to say that the Strathisla single malts help to define the Chivas blend, and leave it at that. Finally, many entries by a variety of wikipedia users under 'Chivas in popular culture' have been deleted, which I think is a shame. It does appear to me that a user (not yourself) with apparent links to a competitor Scotch has been slating Chivas in the article, and I don't think this is what wikipedia should be used for. I hope you will understand the rationale behind my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.62.150 (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair point about the Strathisla, but criticism and other information from reliable/notable sources should definitely be in the article. The 'in popular culture' section is trivia, and must go, or any notable pieces should be integrated into the article as prose. The article needs a lot of work, the main part of it is just a list, rather than paragraphs of prose, etc. There are also concerns expressed on the talk page that the article has, or had at one time, a very pro-Chivas POV. Geoff B (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Geoff, but surely we could post lots of differing opinions from various whisky writers. The same Jim Murray in his new book describes Chivas 25 as "beautiful delivery...unbelievably juicy and mouthwatering...unadulterated class...leaves you demanding another glass. Brilliant!" Should this also be added alongside his other more negative comments noted? The article could go on forever this way. Isn't is better to leave subjective opinions on taste out, and to rely on the less subjective tasting notes as the more factual descriptor? With regard to Seagrams alleged dealings with bootleggers, this was some years before they aquired Chivas, so I would suggest that these allegations are best raised in the Seagrams article as they have far less relevance to their management of Chivas Regal 20 years later. My intention is not to drive a whitewash, but for the article to be fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.62.150 (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Tracks

Hi Geoff B, I noticed that you deleted the tracks guide in Super Mario Kart. I know it's not the best form, but shouldn't the tracks be stated in some shape or form? Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Lists of tracks, characters, items etc are game guide material, and shouldn't be included on Wikipedia. If you see 'em, remove 'em. Geoff B (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Cast sections

I understand what your saying, but if you check as an example "Featured Articles" that appear on Wiki's homepage under the film section; you'll see numerous films that give a supplement to the plot for character info (Its not duplicate info). Its not just about the official actors who play them with cited references about their roles. Here are a few movies just to name a few. These articles on films were "Featured Articles" and they contain the same type of content under the cast section that appeared for the Rookie.

Resident Evil Characters

I guess both of us have been busy lately and seemingly missed this. I'm not sure how you feel about that, but I have noticed that you have put in a lot of work in those articles. Please feel free to voice your opinion on the talk page. Thanks --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  16:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


Removing content

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Tommy (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Eh? No I won't, because I'm editing, not vandalising. Sorry about the lack of summaries, only just started again after a long break. Geoff B (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

A barnstar!

The Cleanup Barnstar
For excellent tidying of the Gameplay section of the Evony article. BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 16:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Madre de Dios! My very own barnstar. Thank you very much. Geoff B (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

IP vandal

Gave one last warning, then I'll report. Prime Blue (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I'm not really involved in this one. Geoff B (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Spare me your insults, Geoffrey. I'm not a vandal. Vandals delete whole pages and add words like poop. Remember your friend Total Wanker? [2]--70.127.200.198 (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you are a vandal. You're also a sock puppeteer, and someone who sends threatening emails. Geoff B (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

My response to your comment.[3]

Go screw yourself and grow up. But then again, what else would I expect from a cocky sarcastic loser? --70.127.200.182 (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Is that so?

I'm flattered that you're obsessed with me but the feeling is NOT mutual. I actually laugh at your pathetic countless attempts to get me blocked. In fact, in one case only YOU got blocked. If you had any brains, you would have gotten rid of me LONG ago. It's sad that you spend hours a month tracking down my edit history. You can't even get your facts straight. You're such a sad pathetic loser with no life. It's a pleasure to piss you off. Great times. You probably spend all day on the computer instead of going out and getting fresh air. You have my deepest sympathies.

Have a great life, my British friend. I've always wanted to go to London. Anyway, have a great life. --70.126.138.115 (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And yes, you're blocked, again. Geoff B (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark Aldred

I feel sorry for you, buddy, for having to deal with this weirdo for so long. I've made post to the incident board about his recent behavior, if you want to chime in. Splatterhouse5 (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Addition to Sunshine, reliable source?

Hello, Geoff B. You have new messages at Erik's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Replied. Geoff B (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Resident Evil 4 and 5 Survival Horror?

Have you actually played the game? If someone told you a racing game was a 1st person shooter would you take their word for it? Capcom only say it's a survival horror for marketing purposes.

The definition of survival horror is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_horror#Definition

I don't think the game is a survival horror because you have practically endless ammunition and resources, there are few puzzles, you have no inventory management issues, combat is not de-emphasized - instead you just blast your way through endless hordes of enemies.

If you ever want more items you can simply go back to the previous area to shoot barrels, etc - you can do this forever. You never fear that you're going to run out of items.

Dieing is insignificant as the area that you were in simply reloads whereas in the previous games if you hadn't saved recently (which you must find ink ribbons for) then it takes you several minutes to get back to where you were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holygamer (talk • contribs) 03:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have made the assumption that I reverted you based on personal preference. I did not
Whether you or I have played the games is irrelevant.
Whichever genre you or I think best describes RE4 and 5 is irrelevant.
Your opinion about what RE4 and 5 is or is not is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Find some reliable sources to cite, because there are plenty that say that RE4 and 5 are survival horrors.
If you'd spent five minutes looking into the matter, you'd see I know about Resident Evil, and survival horror, having made extensive edits to their articles. You need to find out a little more about Wikipedia's rules, or you'll fall afoul of them.
For instance, if you found an article on IGN, GameSpot, or in a magazine or newspaper, that said that RE4 was not survival horror, you could cite it and at least get the fact that RE4 is not survival horror mentioned in the article. If you found a lot of articles from reliable sources saying it isn't a survival horror, then you could get it removed entirely. At the moment, a lot of sources (most major review sites) say that RE4 is a survival horror, even if they only mention it in passing in a review. What matters on Wikipedia is facts, not truth. If you can't cite a source, it's just your opinion. Geoff B (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. Lesson learned I guess. Seems bizarre to me as the sources are just repeating what they were told by the Capcom marketing machine and then Wiki editors cite those sources even if it might not be true! Could you please tell me how I'm supposed to get an email when someone posts a message on my talk page. Thanks Holygamer (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Very cute adding my IP address to your archive.

But it still doesn't change the fact that you are wrong and that I am following what Prime Blue suggested. Also, 95.211.27.5 was never my IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.204.44 (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Not only are you inept, you're also slow. What are you doing wrong? My first thought would be: lots. You've got me in stitches, here, trying to hamfistedly edit that article. Geoff B (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Really? Then why can't you block me permanently. That's because you are a slow inept anal retard. You can't even see the whole freaking video that proves that Hirko Kato wrote Wesker's Report. You'll never get rid of me. No matter which range you block, I'll come back with another one. Tough luck, buddy. As you say in Britain, CHEERS!--69.22.184.10 (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, really. I really was laughing. Your antics are hilarious. The fact that the only thing you consistently achieve is getting blocked only makes it more amusing. I don't want rid of you, I want you to stick around and keep entertaining me. Oh, by the way, the correct format when responding to comments is to use one more colon than the preceding comment, not the same amount, so you indent your comment a little more. See, you're learning! Geoff B (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't you mean "I don't want TO GET rid of you"? See, you're learning already. What's really sad is how you spend ALL DAY copying my IP addresses. I'm flattered that you are obsessed about me but the feeling is not mutual. You are a sad loser child who spends all day on his computer looking at video games, crying like a baby to administrators and complaining over small grammar edits. It's really funny watching your sad existence show itself on the internet. You have a sad life, geek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.184.10 (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Well done, you have put your new colon knowledge into practice I see! Yes, copying your sockpuppets and IPs took me all day. Oh, no, wait, it took me a minute or so to copy and paste it. Nice try, though. Why don't you have a go at editing the Gaiden article again? Oh, no, wait, you can't, because you're an IP address, and the article is semi-protected. Maybe you could create another sockpuppet? But what if someone reports you? Well, getting caught has never stopped you doing stupid things before, so why start now! Geoff B (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Well done, your paragraph has no grammar edits this time. You are doing great for your first lesson, I see. Oh, wait, you are supposed to say "Well, getting caught has never stopped you FROM doing stupid things before". Also, you are mistaken. You have spent the last year obsessing over me. Oh, wait, I already know the Gaiden article has been semi-protected. Oh, wait, I don't care if they catch me. Your hubris has never stopped you from saying stupid things, so why start now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.184.10 (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
You don't care if they catch you? You don't say! Geoff B (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although one of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view, we would like to remind you not to undo other people's edits, as you did to the page The Road (film), without explaining why in an edit summary. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Thank you. magnius (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Bit laughable, really, warning me for undoing people's edits, when my edit was actually the one that was undone first. Geoff B (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Blur

please stop talking rubbish on thwe blur page..have you played the game? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omallystwin (talk • contribs) 19:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

What? Geoff B (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Resident Evil Slowdown

What was wrong with my post? It's common knowledge that the PAL game runs slower and I feel this is useful information for people to be aware of. Why do I need a reference when the slowdown is in the game - it's not like I'm talking about what genre the game is so I didn't think I needed a reference because the slowdown is a fact which can't be disputed.

You won't find a decent source as the game reviewers only play the game in their region. Why would they play the PAL game if they live in America and PAL isn't used there?

The only source I can find is from a speedrunner (do CTRL + F and search for "PAL"):

http://speeddemosarchive.com/ResidentEvil.html#ArrangeChrisSS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holygamer (talk • contribs) 17:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Slowdown can be disputed if it doesn't have a source. See WP: SOURCE. We can't include things because an editor says it is true. We can include them if they have a reliable source. Geoff B (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok that page is a lot clearer than another page I looked at. I understand now. There really should be a link to that page whenever someone makes an edit, instead we have to look through a massive help section!
On a seperate issue can you tell me why the Gamecube game doesn't have it's own page? People say it's because there isn't enough info to warrant it's own page but why is that reason enough to include a game which has nothing to do with the PS1 game? Stubs are allowed so why can't it have it's own stub? The game is 70% different from the original so surely it should have it's own page? Holygamer (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem.
Regarding the GC RE, that's an interesting point, actually. A lot of remakes do get their own pages, although usually there's a bigger chronological gap between the original and the remake, and a correspondingly big difference in gameplay. The best way to do it would be to put together the whole article on a user page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UP). The entire article, lead, plot, gameplay, development, etc, all sourced. Then create the page on Wikipedia. This might seem like a bit of a pain, but a status quo has been established in the current article that the GC version gets a section, and that's it. If you create the article on Wikipedia now and start building it up, you'll get editors coming by and reverting, arguing etc. If you present them with a full article, it stands a much better chance of being kept, and it can't be incorporated into the existing RE article as it would make it rather unwieldy in size. The difficult bit would probably be digging up enough sources for the article. Geoff B (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The Resident Evil Wiki used the article as a base for its article on the same game. The page was then separated between the 'original' and 'remake' versions.-- OsirisV (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Alan Wake

[4] 3rd time indeed. I think we can start considering this vandalism now. Rehevkor ✉ 21:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, there doesn't seem to be any communication forthcoming. Geoff B (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I Am Legend (novel)

Wow are you fucking retarded? Have you not read the end of I am Legend? I'm sorry for being so rude, but the actual fact is a total fucking idiot such as yourself shouldn't be moderating such things. You're fucking amateur. Christian Bale would fucking shit in your throat.

LEARN TO WRITE A PROPER ARTICLE WHICH YOU CAN DO IF YOU ACTUALLY READ THE BOOK.

If you vandalise the page again, you'll be blocked. Geoff B (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Inversions (novel)

Would you mind not removing correct information (as can be seen by reading the novel)? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.249.1 (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind citing a source. Your opinion doesn't count. Thanks. Geoff B (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not opinion, it is empiric evidence if you like, as everyone can see by reading the books. Will add references. Just out of interest, if I am not mistaken, the Guardian is used as a reference. Who says that Guardian critics are subject matter experts in this field? Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.249.1 (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and just for the record, this was my first edit on Wikipedia, because I thought it would be a good idea to contribute to a global knowledge base. I don't know who you are, and where you are in the hierarchy of Wikipedia editors, but the way you respond, to me and other's will ultimately not be beneficial for Wikipedia. Again, just a thought... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.249.1 (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian is counted as a reliable source, see WP:RS. They don't necessarily need to be experts. Geoff B (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Acronyms

I was wondering if the "." was allowed in acronyms if all sources use it. "S.T.A.R.S." has always been spelt as such by Capcom in both their games and in real life. Furthermore, this is the only one spelt as such. Other acronym organisations (UBCS, BSAA) are spelt without.-- OsirisV (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The manual of style says generally not to (here) regardless of whether the organisation itself does. If we change to S.T.A.R.S., we'll have to change to U.B.C.S. etc to be consistent. I think STARS is better because A) MOS says to not bother with full stops, and B) It's quicker and simpler, you get people doing stuff like 'S.T.A.R.S'. However, if a consensus develops in favour of full stops, I'm not going to edit war over it. Geoff B (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I was just wondering because I've seen a few STARS -> S.T.A.R.S. changes and vice versa when checking up on the history of Resident Evil articles. It seems that when someone changes it as per WP:ACRONYM, someone mistakes it for an incorrect addition and reverts. -- OsirisV (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Yup, I've been trying to get it consistent, started off as S.T.A.R.S. which was years ago, before I found the WP:MOS, mostly been converting to STARS for a while and it's pretty consistent, at least on the game pages. Geoff B (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Gravity Crash

Hi, why do you keep editing the details of our game? we're adding FACTS to the wiki page, so why are having them removed?

Why should we have to add citations? since WE created the game, we know everything there is to know about it?!

Right now I'm FAR from happy about your editing of our stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JAWLTD (talk • contribs) 19:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't give a toss. Cite a source or it'll stay gone. That's how it works here. Geoff B (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I Am Legend (again)

Achh, it's editors like you that give Wikipedia a bad name.

I Am Legend is a crummy little novel by a second-rate hack writer. It would be totally forgotten by now, except for the fact that someone went and made a movie based on it, starring Will Smith. As a result, we now have FANs -- and the first rule of FANdom is: Don't allow a single critical word to be spoken about the movie, about the novel on which the movie is based, etc. True to this creed, you choose to label Damon Knight's (quite temperate) review as a "POV" issue -- which is your way of saying: Any review of the book that is not over-the-top enthusiastic (like Schneider's) is biased. Which, of course, just reveals your own bias. 65.217.238.202 (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Is that it? Geoff B (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Cross purposes

GeoffB is talking about Ref. 3. I am talking about the BBC story in the External Sources in the Waldorf article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.252.249 (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That sources the minor injuries bit, no problem, but not that the police left and were replaced by other officers, unless I'm not seeing some part of it? Geoff B (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Small Gods

You reverted my edit citing "Original research". Please tell me how the hell I am supposed to mention something in a plot of a book with a reference? I can hardly find a complete online version of the book and cite the page/paragraph number. Also, if you are going to edit grammar of the article anyways, why not just edit the version I changed instead of reverting it to a version with less info and correcting that?

I don't mean this as an insult, but have you read the book? A couple of your changes indicate that you haven't or it has been a long time since you have.

Impablomations (talk) 11:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can't find a source for it, it can't stay in Wikipedia. See WP:OR. You can't simply cite the book, because the book does not support your interpretation, you'd need to cite another source that does.

Plot sections are meant to be concise, see WP:PLOTSUM. The plot section is not meant to cover every single detail of the work's plot. It's meant to give a summary. If you can't be bothered to sort out the grammar and punctuation in your own edits, why edit an encyclopaedia? Being reverted isn't a big deal, you can look at the past version, copy 'n paste it into notepad, sort it out and try again. We've all been reverted, it's not something to get excited about unless someone's picking on you.

It has been a while since I've read the book, though. Geoff B (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Controversies surrounding MW2 Quote

You marked one of my corrections, regarding who said a quote in Game Informer, as vandalism, despite the fact that that if you check the citation, what I wrote was correct. Why so quick to mark it so? 68.52.59.64 (talk)

Sorry chap, got my reviewers mixed up. Thank you for correcting it! Geoff B (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Troll Bridge

I notice that you have a number of complaints for exactly the same action you are taking on Troll Bridge. The information you are removing is neither Original research nor Point of view and large parts of it are referenced. I would remind you that Troll Bridge is a short story and it is difficult to obtain valid references for novels. L-Space, the site that I use many references from, has been endorsed by the author. I am restoring the page to as it was and any further attempts to delete the content will be viewed as vandalism and appropriate action will be taken. Where is WikiResearch? (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. You can report me here. It'll get you nothing but a good laugh all round, but please, report away. Looks like you need to read WP:VANDAL as well. Geoff B (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Project Revolution

Before it was called "Red Faction", this game was shown at the 2000 Electronics Entertainment Expo in beta form for the Sega Dreamcast. You should check your sources before playing GOD being I am part of the Sega Dreamcast project (something you should know being you seem to be able to wipe out the truth). Please educate yourself, check with those who edited this info. If you look within wiki, you will find listed under "Canceled Dreamcast Games" is Project Revolution. If you check the link from there, it will take you to Project Revolution and it will fill in the missing history.

This is all I ask of you, check the truth, not just edit. This is why high schools do not want students to use Wikipedia; incorrect edits and people editing their own versions of the truth. I guess you are not a Dreamcast fan, sorry we were ahead of our time like the Sony Betamax and the Mattel Intellivision...but that more than likely isn't true, is it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeeman3 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What are you on about? Do you have a source for this, or not? See WP:RS. New talk goes to the bottom, by the way. Geoff B (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You are abusing the privilege wiki gives you. I am very serious about this matter. You have purposely suppressed factual info, be it minor or not based on your assumed knowledge. This is a violation of wiki usage and I urge you to resolve this matter properly. If you have a problem with this, please have the decency or professionalism of communicating this issue to me as opposed to wiping out the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeeman3 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I still don't know what you are on about. Either quote a reliable source, or stop talking rubbish. And while you're at it, read WP:CIVIL and learn how Wikipedia works. You need to cite a reliable source, or this information cannot be included. Geoff B (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Source = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Revolution_%28game%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeeman3 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't use other Wikipedia articles as a source. That's idiotic. And even if you could that article doesn't have any sources either. Read WP:RS. Geoff B (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Geoff B, I will work on this other than my connection with the liquidated company and attempt to product this in which I was a part of.Monkeeman3 (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

...What? Geoff B (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Expendables Cast

I was under the impression that Wikipedia was created in order to have information on the pages. I have seen multiple movie pages where characters are explained in a nutshell and I personally find them very intriguing. I do not understand the use of simply copy/pasting info from IMDb like that's the law when it comes to movies, but why not have both? My last edit had the cast (IN IT'S CORRECT ORDER IN THE END TITLE AND ON IMDb) which it is currently NOT on Wikipedia and had a separate list for info on the characters? Why is that bad? Why is that vandalism? To talk and explain more about the characters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MorbidChid (talk • contribs) 15:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Read the style guidelines. That's the third (no, actually, fourth) time I've suggested you do that. Then you'll know why. Your impression, what you've seen on other articles, etc, does not really have any bearing on how we create articles on Wikipedia. I never said your edits were vandalism. Geoff B (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
What about having the list of characters in the plot section with more info written about them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MorbidChid (talk • contribs) 15:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
It's perfectly acceptable to include more info about the characters in the Cast section, but it can't be in-universe stuff. You can cite reliable sources about the actors talking about their roles and their characters in the Cast section, but you can't just include info that's taken from the film, because that should be in the Plot section. See Casablanca's Cast section. Geoff B (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed your "best sentences"

Comedy gold, that. I've got a reply to you on my talk page about the production question you asked. To sum up; I have no bloody idea. Millahnna (mouse)talk 16:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

A prophet plot summary

Hey, I made a response for the rationale behind the overly long plot summary on the talk page. I was hoping that other users can simplify the summary based on the longer one I wrote this would be easier that creating a new summary from the reverted version. Valoem talk 16:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting involved with the plot summary on A Prophet. I tried to offer a meaningful middle ground between you and Valoem but obviously he's not accepting my repeated offers to enter into discussion on the key issues. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's hoping Millahnna's intervention sorts it out! Geoff B (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Barnstar of Recovery
It takes a very special editor who not only can spot a problematic article and not be afraid to nominate it for deletion, but who can also see the potential value in that same article and improve it to the point where it becomes a suitable asset to the project. So for your work in addressing your own concerns voiced at your nomination of Characters of Dante's Inferno and for your exemplary work in the creation of the improved List of characters in Dante's Inferno (video game), I am honored to award you this Barnstar of Recovery. Excellent job. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Geoff_B/Archive_2&oldid=1139198809"