This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Are you even a real person? -- Asperchu ( talk) 17:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sry for that, but damn this is just amazing. -- Asperchu ( talk) 17:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Almost always. Geoff B ( talk) 18:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I have closed the discussion to merge Underworld to Hell; there was no consensus for that merger. I have started a new discussion. I propose that List of underworlds and List of underworld rulers be merged to Underworld. Your comments are welcome at Talk:Underworld#Merge from lists. Cnilep ( talk) 14:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I ask you to do as you say, using English rather than wikipedia jargon. Please explain to me what is wrong with my revision to The Expendables (2010 film) article. Additionally, I ask you to stop patronizing me.

If your concern is of using in-universe information (as implied in your edit summaries) in the "Cast [and characters]" section, I direct you to these good articles:

The Dark Knight (film)

Watchmen (film)

Avatar (2009 film)

The list could go on and on. In fact, many of these "good articles" about films have the section of "Cast and characters" which you so dread. Respond. -- Boycool ( talk) 22:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Since you are apparently speechless, I am reverting your edit to the article. If you object, then respond to these messages on my talk page rather than continuing to undo my revisions and threaten me. Thank you. -- Boycool ( talk) 23:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, in order.

• I ask you to do as you say - What do I say?

• Please explain to me what is wrong with my revision - Done this about four times now. You keep putting PLOT information in the CAST section.

• Additionally, I ask you to stop patronizing me. - I'm not patronising you. I'm trying to explain what you are doing wrong.

• If your concern is of using in-universe information - It is, as I have stated clearly several times. All those articles have lots and lots of sourced ( WP:RS) info in their cast sections. None of them just have actors, characters, and in-universe info.

• (as implied in your edit summaries) - I didn't imply anything, I stated it clearly here and again on your talk page.

• Respond. - Don't make demands, it doesn't go over well.

• rather than continuing to undo my revisions and threaten me. - If you honestly believe I have threatened you, you should definitely report me. I recommend you do so ASAP. I'd like you to quote and link me to where I threatened you, please.

Thank you. Geoff B ( talk) 23:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, since you are hellbent on not making the cast section consistent with other articles, I'm changing the subject. Perhaps we should [semi?]protect the article so people will stop adding "Trent Mauser"? -- Boycool ( talk) 19:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

See: Talk:The Expendables (2010 film)#Trent Mauser. After seeing several youtube videos, I have refreshed my memory and remember Schwarzenegger's character being called "Trent Mauser", so I'm all for changing it in the article. In fact, it seems everyone is but you. I think it begs the question: Have you seen the movie? If so, why are you dead set against changing the name? -- Boycool ( talk) 20:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You reverted my edit to Prototype ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Prototype_%28video_game%29&oldid=386132354) as vandalism. Why? The section I deleted is not important enough to be in the Introduction, it's POV, and at best deserves a mention further down in the article. No? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.170.51 ( talk) 02:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A summation of the reception section should be included in the lead, as the lead is a short summary of the article itself (see the Manual of Style. When reviewed, Prototype was compared to Infamous by many reviewers, so this is not POV (the lead doesn't really need to be sourced if what it says is sourced elsewhere in the article, or unless what it says is liable to be challenged regularly). The removal of sourced information is vandalism. The comment is certainly not irrelevant given the widespread comparison. Geoff B ( talk) 13:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless you are going to respond to the discussion, please stop removing comments in page discussions that do not apply to you. Your self importance does not grant you permission to apply censorship at your leisure. 67.246.185.40 ( talk) 06:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you lost that argument, tough guy. Now kindly remove yourself from my presence for the rest of your life. 67.246.185.40 ( talk) 17:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Hard cheese. Geoff B ( talk) 20:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Added information to Jill Valentine page has been verified and confirmed refer the reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avaloan ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The reference that's a fan video and is years out of date? That reference? Geoff B ( talk) 20:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want my source, I can send you the game's master textfile in five different languages, alongside some voice samples of the Firstborn with regards to Ereshkigall. I did not know how to incorporate that into my edit as source, however, if I show you the proofs, will you bring the section back? 84.60.118.10 ( talk) 18:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

After a quick google search, I came to the conclusion that I am the only person to have found the hidden data thus far. The existence of a aplanned alternate ending is fact, though. It just makes me angry that I am possibly the only living person besides those who were part of the game's developement to know the whole story. Would it be of any good to upload the relevant passages from the master text file, as well as some of the audio samples and loading screens for the final battle and epilogue to Wikisource? 84.60.118.10 ( talk) 19:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It may take me some time to upload it, though. I have never done anything like this ever before. 84.60.118.10 ( talk) 19:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one who pulled the Alternate Ending section. 84.60.118.10 asked me about it, and I replied on my talk page. This is just in case he misses the note I left on his page. Larrythefunkyferret ( talk) 02:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Also seriously, are you editing 24/7. -- Asperchu ( talk) 14:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You literally don't have a clue, do you. And yes, I am editing 24/7, and yes, I will revert your mistakes 24/7, and no, you can't get rid of me. Geoff B ( talk) 14:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"Mistakes" like correcting the claim of "novels" when there was only one novels, and such. I guess it was not your mistake (nort an idiot edit) too, when you just claimed the intro was already elsewhere when it was not. Take some sleep or something, sometimes, maybe you will make less mistakes while "reverting mistakes". Now excuse me while I'll "get rid of you" -- Asperchu ( talk) 14:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"Take some sleep"? Who do I take it from? LOL. I eagerly await your efforts to get rid of me. Hopefully they're better than your usual efforts. Geoff B ( talk) 15:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

My "efforts to get rid of" you are simply outstanding. Btw, I have never seen you making a single good edit. All the articles you are watching were horrible before my rewrites (the list of Resident Evil characters being probaly the worst), but you have never moved a finger to make them any better. Interesting, isn't it? -- Asperchu ( talk) 15:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

If by "interesting" you mean "hilarious" then yes, it is. Do carry on making a prat of yourself, by all means, it provides me with entertainment. Geoff B ( talk) 16:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You know what? You are a really shitty editor. Oh wait, you are not an editor at all. -- Asperchu ( talk) 16:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Righto, Billy Bullshitter. Go stick a few more flags in infoboxes. ROFL! Geoff B ( talk) 16:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I reverted this revert of yours. The ref cited says "8.9", so I'm unsure why you changed it to an incorrect value. Could you please explain? Regards So Why 20:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This says 7.8 for me. The links are slightly different. I copy 'n pasted mine from the article's ref. Is this a regional issue?

Addendum: It seems it is. Yours is the UK review, mine is the US version! IGN's automatic redirects are silly things.

• http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/105/1057715p3.html - yours, three page job by Matt Wales.
• http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/105/1057923p2.html - mine, two page article by Charles Onyett.

Geoff B ( talk) 20:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Even on the second link it says "8.9" on the right side (in the box, see screenshot). I guess that's the combined IGN score? Do you see that as well? If so, I think we can agree that we should probably use the combined score instead of the regional, although if not, I'm unsure how to proceed... Regards So Why 20:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I can see that box on the right, although clicking it takes me to the UK review? But if that's the US/UK/AU combined score, certainly, let's use that rather than list all three. Geoff B ( talk) 20:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks as if IGN is unable to make up their mind which is the "correct" score. I'll see if the folks at WT:VG think about it. Regards So Why 21:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not an average of the three, that's, er, 8.6? Hmm. Thanks for notifying me, anyway. Geoff B ( talk) 21:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Prevent stuff like this. Or maybe really "flags in infoboxes. ROFL!" are more important. -- Asperchu ( talk) 12:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I prefer watching you trying to stop an anon IP, it's much more amusing. Carry on. Geoff B ( talk) 12:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

So I was right, you are really a no-life total asshole with no good intentions here at all. Well, fuck you too. This is the last time I attempted to discuss anything with you. -- Asperchu ( talk) 18:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page called my edits 'idiotic'. Everything else has grown out of your own failure to assume good faith. You call people vandals because they disagree with and revert you. You take no notice of WP:RS and numerous other Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia is supposed to be about discussion, compromise, reliable sources, NPOV, no original research, and so on and so forth. None of which you are interested in. You think you can call me names, and then turn around and tell me to help you? You must be joking. Geoff B ( talk) 18:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I call people "idiots"WHEN THEY DO IDIOTIC THINGS (I already explained to you) - WITHOUT ATTEMPTING TO REACH A CONSENSUS (reverting repeatedly without discussing, and usually not replying when I try to discuss). -- Asperchu ( talk) 18:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I cannot believe you are shocked that I am not going along with your foolishness. You cannot build a consensus to include original research, use unreliable sources, include POV statements and material copied from other websites. Geoff B ( talk) 19:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Geoff B has earned enough recognition on Wikipedia to warrant his own page on wikipedia, describing him truthfully: "One of the most pig-headed and dumbest assholes on Wikipedia." Congratulations, you're pretty good at pissing people off. 67.246.185.40 ( talk) 15:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Coming from you, that is an unbelievable compliment. However, as with your attempts to edit other articles, you obviously do not understand various Wikipedia policies, such as reliable sources, notability, no original research, and so on and so forth in that fashion. Thank you very much though. Geoff B ( talk) 19:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Also, I've involved you as you seem to also have some conflict with the editors. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain ( talk) 19:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Just saw your most recent addition and though you might want to add "whilst" to the list. That one is seriously abused. I've noticed a plague of people using "whom" when they should be using "who" lately, which is about 50 kajillion times more annoying than the reverse. But I don't suppose that fits on your list. Millahnna ( talk) 22:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that. People replace 'who' with 'whom' even when 'who' is correct. It's odd. I suppose they think it sounds more formal? Geoff B ( talk) 22:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Depending on how snarky I'm feeling my guess is usually that it's either kids who think as you suspect or morons who are wannabe grammar nazis in blog comments around the interwebz. They are the same types of people who write "general consensus of opinion" without a trace of irony. In any case, your list makes me smile when I start to get all screamy from poor formal writing. Millahnna ( talk) 22:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The worst one for me personally is 'ironically'. I don't think I've seen it used correctly yet, and it's inspired a terrible doubt in me that I am the one who doesn't know what it means. I'm reviewing the revision and have several other tabs open, all explaining what irony is, 100% certain that I am, in fact, an ignoramus, and that there is small rebel movement out there dedicated to the correct use of the word on Wikipedia. Geoff B ( talk) 22:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The hardest thing about irony for me are the sub-definitions; there's the basic definition that everyone except Alanis Morrisette is familiar with and then there's all of the others. So I often have to stop and double check that what at first seems like an incorrect usage of the word isn't, in fact, a case of dramatic irony or Socratic irony or some such (not that I can recall what either means at the moment). For dramatic irony, at least, most people seem to use the whole phrase when they refer to it so it is easier to get right. In meatspace I used to know this dude who managed to accomplish everything in this thread and would throw in an irregardless for good measure. Love that guy (if by "love" you mean "want to smack with a dictionary repeatedly"). This was while I was in the Navy so I like to tell people how their tax dollars paid for this guy's college education. Good times? Millahnna ( talk) 00:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Irregardless is painful one to hear. I wonder how long it's going to be before that sort of abuse is made illegal? The misuse of 'literally' has come to my attention of late (e.g. "I literally went to work."). It's such a heinous crime it disarms me, I don't know where to begin. There is a huge gulf created instantaneously, with me and my tears on one side, and the word-criminal on the other. Geoff B ( talk) 00:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You ever read "The Oatmeal"? They have a great one about "literally". When I first read it I was so excited that I literally laughed until I exploded. Heh. For that matter, xkcd brings that one up periodically. Millahnna ( talk) 01:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This? That's the first time I've seen it, and piss-yourself-worthy it is too, thank you. I know xkcd of old, but The Oatmeal is new to me! Geoff B ( talk) 07:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Check out his thing on i.e. versus e.g. too. ANd if you hate Twilight as much as I do, that one cannot be missed. I will forever refer to Bell as Pants now. Millahnna ( talk) 12:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Such generosity. I do not know of any webcomics that contain knowledge and humour in such a tasty blend, and can only offer up the Perry Bible Fellowship and Achewood in humble reply. Thank you. And I abhor Twilight. Literary herpes. Geoff B ( talk) 19:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of your list (I have no idea how one would enter this concept on a simple list), I just went on one of my mini rampages to stamp out pedantic usage of the phrase "protagonist of the film". In the process I also killed a lot of plot summary in cast lists (nothing we're unfamiliar with) and some really awkward grammar like:

• Mr. So and So as Peter, the father or Main character dude

Seriously... what the fresh hell is wrong with saying Main character dude's father? This was rampant on several articles. I've run into it before but never in such concentrated doses. Millahnna ( talk) 19:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I've seen that, predominantly on game and game-related articles. I have no idea why they do it. It's not even like it's more formal, or much more/less wordy. There is a shorter, simpler way to do it. It just seems like certain phraseologies fall into favour (sometimes from the source material, especially in the case of games or other media that have been translated from Japanese) among fans, and they all adopt it.

Addition - That is some serious cast-section cleaning you have done, how on Earth do you stand it for article after article? I get all twitchy. Geoff B ( talk) 19:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Search and replace function in MS Word handles the heavy lifting for me (overbolding and removing tables are easily killed that way). I can only do a few articles at a time though; the pruning of plot summary stuff usually requires I actually read what I'm editing. Millahnna ( talk) 21:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I must admit, I am still at the cottage industry stage of doing almost everything manually. My fingers can't move quick enough to edit everything I want edited. The resultant nervous energy, after skimming the creamy fancruft from the milk of the article, builds up, until I end up with a tic or something. Definitely a signal to stop editing and watch a nice relaxing horror film... Geoff B ( talk) 22:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I am considering restoring my more detailed and accurate version of A Prophet. I am hoping for some support, but do not mind if you revert to the version you feel is better. Millahnna had already post on my talk page suggesting that my version is also effective. I have patiently waited for over a month in vain. Based on the talk page, Millahnna is looking for more details which my version provides. I also believe that Ring Cinema is going to revert my version immediately because of his personal bias. If you look at his talk page you will notice that he has shown bias in the past. Valoem ^talk 16:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You have been patient, thanks Valoem. I'd like to see both yours and Milahnna's plot sections on the talk page. I think it would be good to look them over. I think Milahnna did finish her version but a browser error killed it when she put it on the talk page. Either way, let's have a look, if you don't mind? Geoff B ( talk) 16:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I've created and combined elements from both plot summaries and posted it on a new section in the talk page. Tell me what you think :) Valoem ^talk 19:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

HELP!!! As I expected Ring Cinema is attacking the new version again and freely reverting. Please help me revert. He is showing bad faith and I believe he does not care which version is better as long as his version stays. Seems like an ego problem. Valoem ^talk 14:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Lugnuts has posted about this at the Film project, so expect more editors to be involved shortly! Geoff B ( talk) 14:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Geoff. Since you're looking at the article, I'd like you to untangle the problem you helped create. Specifically, the paragraph that starts "Prior to..." is incoherent and unnecessary. Since I was wise enough to exclude these side issues from my draft, perhaps you would be kind enough to figure out how to repair that abysmal example of English style. Radical surgery is required. Many thanks for taking a stab at it. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 15:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's coherent and necessary. I don't think radical surgery is required. It's where the title of the film comes from. I'm not interested in creating another section explaining the title, when we can do it where it should be done, in the plot section, in a couple of sentences. Geoff B ( talk) 16:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! It looks great really needed help dealing with Ring Cinema :) Valoem ^talk 16:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the issue of the title should come in another section; I suggested that. The source of the title is not a must for the plot summary obviously, but that's fine for now. I appreciate you placating Valoem. That was necessary to move forward. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 17:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Heya Geoff. Only just now saw your note to me about your quick play with this plot. It's much better but I do think it still has some of the issues I noted on the article's talk page (it's the sentences you haven't changed much from the earlier versions). Overall, though, nice clean up. Millahnna ( talk) 22:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably not worth working on further but I may tinker with it. Thanks. Geoff B ( talk) 19:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm actually the one who cleaned it up, so thanks for the support. There is the paragraph about the deer that is quite badly handled. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 01:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I had originally edited the pronunciation of 'curry' because what was there reflected a regional pronunciation, and I had edited it to make the RP and American English pronunciation the most prominent. I was not making the Northern English and Irish pronunciation - the one that was originally there - the main one. I have re-edited it to reflect this. 78.146.114.159 ( talk) 20:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The information you deemed untrustworthy was a statement which clarified the changes between Claire and Elza, which is seen right in early screen-shots of the game, and the other being the percent of the games completion, which is taken from an official interview. 71.201.74.227 ( talk) 02:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia's policy on what is and what is not a reliable source here. If you want to include the info, please cite a reliable source (the actual issue of Famitsu, for instance), rather than a fansite. Geoff B ( talk) 11:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Because everything on IGN is so true and fact based. It's not, they state incorrect information constantly without proven source information. Anyway, I added back the second mention as it is based on imagery shown from the actual released version of 1.5, so fansite or not it's not based on word from mouth. 71.201.74.227 ( talk) 02:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Why did you ignore the link I provided? Anyway, if you had read WP:RS you'd know why IGN is considered a reliable source and why bioflames is not. Nothing to do with truth. Wikipedia's goal is Verifiability, not truth. That is the core sourcing policy. Never mind that screenshots on a fansite are not a reliable source either. Geoff B ( talk) 02:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey there, I've sourced my change to Martyrs remake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbpepper ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Geoff B ( talk) 19:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Geoff B, I just wanted to thank you for your help with that VG Review Template. I think I see what my mistake was, now. 72.69.112.222 ( talk) 06:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

one word; why? -- Alex at kms ( talk) 16:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

See WP:OR. Geoff B ( talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Your taking that out of context; not every article is researched in detail by a reliable source. That section in my opinion is very useful in setting the look a feel of the game (ps: this is one of my favorites) and all of it is factual as evident by both my, and the previous authors experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex at kms ( talk • contribs) 18:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not taking it out of context. It can't be taken out of context as it is one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here." See also WP:RS. Your opinion and the game being one of your favourites is biasing you (see WP:NPOV). Geoff B ( talk) 18:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules-- Alex at kms ( talk) 18:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

But the addition of original research does not improve Wikipedia. See What "Ignore all rules" does not mean. Geoff B ( talk) 18:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It is improving the article by setting the sean, and for lack of anything better i think this constitutes reason for leaving in the original research and breaking the rule, that's my opinion. then again you saying the addition of original research does not improve wikipedia is also your opinion as its not in "what ignore all rules does not mean".-- Alex at kms ( talk) 18:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

No, OR does not improve Wikipedia. That's not my opinion, it is a central tenet of Wikipedia. Ignore all rules is not merely a handy little escape clause every time you bump up against an inconvenient rule, it's meant to stop the rules getting in the way of unforseen improvements. I understand you like the game, but that's not a reason to keep the section. See I like it, particularly "editors are expected to base their arguments as to content upon what can be verified, without introducing their own arguments, analyses, hypotheses, and conclusions, from reliable and independent sources. The Neutral Point of View requires that we make the best efforts to leave our innate prejudices at the door when we edit here, be they political, social, geographic, linguistic, cultural, or otherwise." Bold emphasis mine. Geoff B ( talk) 18:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

whats the reason OR is'nt alowed, its not verifiable, but i as an editor am verifying it though my personal experances, but i'm not alowed to use my personal experiences to verify info. you know the longer i stick around here (and by here i mean wikipedia) the more this remindes me of the senat or the houes or something along thoughts lines. wikipedia is not a bureaucracy! its an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit it in the hopes of enriching the world with the knowledge of others.-- Alex at kms ( talk) 19:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

By your rationale, someone could add "All black people are evil." to the Black people article, and we would not be allowed to remove it if the editor states that every black person he has met was evil, verifying his statement with his own experiences. Can you not see how problematic it is to allow OR and POV statements into an encyclopaedia?

You, as an editor, cannot verify things with your opinion. You, as an editor, verify things by seeking out reliable sources and using them. The section, without sources, is just your opinion. You have no facts to back it up. Take this bit, for instance:

The Tropican generals are portrayed as bearded men wearing olive drab dress uniforms and smoking a cigar, which is strongly influenced by the image of the former Cuban President Fidel Castro

What if I change that to say it is strongly influenced by Saddam Hussein? You have no sources to back up the statement, so you can't say I'm wrong. My version is on an equal footing with your version, because neither are sourced. It's just opinion. You need facts. Geoff B ( talk) 19:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

First i don't want you to think that i'm saying all OR should be allowed, but rather that in many cases (such as this one) it should be allowed. sticking with your example of the generals, i've seen the genrals in the game, that is how they dress, and that is how fidel dressed, the game has very strong inflorescence from communist Cuba; the developers have come out and said so, never mind how hes a playable character in the game. so can i link to a web page supporting that statement but i could link to this picture and tell me this does'nt remind you of him-- Alex at kms ( talk) 19:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

But what if I say it reminds me of Saddam Hussein? Or any one of a number of military dictators? No matter what I say, it's just my opinion, which does not belong in an encyclopaedia. Now, if the devs have said "It's based on Cuba and Castro." you can quote them and use that as a source. Your opinion about what looks like what is not a reliable source. Geoff B ( talk) 20:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey there,

I just wanted to say that I don't really like original research on Wikipedia, and I apologize if my comparison between the two games on the 999: Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors page came across as such. I suppose a source for the one aspect of the observation and a source for the other doesn't equate to the two being connected, contrary to what I originally thought. Not to excuse my misstep, but to try and explain my line of thinking I'll elaborate a bit...

Thanks in no small part to Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney ushering in new popularity of the adventure genre in the US and practically becoming synonymous with the term since, 999 has been repeatedly compared to Ace Attorney in western gaming news outlets for months. As I wrote, both games are very niche and as such had low initial print runs, and the ensuing unexpected demand for the titles (caused by strong word-of-mouth for PWAA and surprisingly high review scores for 999) resulted in widespread unavailability and high resale prices. This bizarre coincidence seemed so remarkable that I thought, however misguidedly, it was notable enough for a mention to be made; to loosely equate it to something a bit more well-known, it seemed no different to me than the line of thinking that led to documentation of the Madden Curse.

Anyway, just wanted to explain myself and apologize if I came off like a fanboy contributing something unencyclopedic... not my intention at all. The Mach Turtle ( talk) 07:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No apology necessary. The similarities are obvious, and if (when) a source does compare the two, it can go right back in. It's nice to actually have some information in the reception section about how the game sold beyond mere figures. Good on you for adding it. Geoff B ( talk) 04:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Point of View is not vandalism. Read up on it. Get. It. Right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.152.46 ( talk) 13:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Geoff B ( talk) 15:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VAND#NOT. Go read it properly. Have a look. Keep at it! You'll get it eventually. Before enforcing Wikipedia's policies, I suggest you read and, most importantly, understand them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.152.46 ( talk) 06:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Course it isn't. Geoff B ( talk) 09:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Geoff B,

i received your message about personal analysis in WP - i am the co-writer of Big Trouble in Little China, David Z Weinstein. This article is riddled with FACTUAL mistakes. The quotes while verifiable are distinctly distort the truth of the events. I think the article was sponsored by Richter or Carpenter or the studio or some combination of these characters. The article actually does a disservice to those WP readers who would like to know the facts and truth behind this film. I have tow suggestions - take it down until a more factual and balanced article can be posted. Or include my corrections with first person citations as of the date of my edits. If others have corrections, they may do so in the future with the proper credentials or citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wileyprescott ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're going to need reliable sources to support your edits, Mr...Weinstein. Please see WP:RS for what we consider a reliable source. Geoff B ( talk) 18:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Geoff,

Have you no appreciation

for pooetry?

--<-@ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.119.242 ( talk) 00:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate it has its place, which unfortunately, is not on Wikipedia. Thank you, though. I shall strive not to remember the defecatory doggerel. Geoff B ( talk) 00:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey Geoff B, Why did you change my edits to Wolf Creek? I did not break any rules. I did not write ANYTHING offensive or give personal opinions or unverifiable facts. Wikipedia claims to encourage people to make contributions by editing or correcting articles or sending money. I spent a considerable amount of my precious time making these changes (having just finished watching the movie), and without any comment, you have simply removed everything I have written. You didn't contribute by modifying my changes, you just removed my carefully written and grammatically correct edits wholesale. SHAME on you. This sort of behaviour could be easily mistaken for a power trip, and judging from the entries you have left below, I can see this is a common theme with you. No doubt you'll reply with some smarmy comment or just delete this, but you know how I feel and why I'll never make another monetary contribution to Wikipedia.

Kind regards, 124.183.116.29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.116.29 ( talk) 02:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not revert you without comment. See the edit history of the article here. If you require a more in-depth explanation I shall be only too glad to give you one. For instance:

• The mood is ominous and the jokes about UFOs and missing people seem to be real. - POV, original research
• He laughs about how they called this making a "head on a stick" in Vietnam, and is one of the most utterly inhumane and cruel scenes in the movie. - POV
• Liz is a pathetic sight, immobilised on the floor, with realisation and fear written all over her face. As she slowly dies of blood loss, Mick (presumably) tortures her into revealing the location and/or plans of Kristy. - POV, OR

And so on in that fashion. You've put your own opinion about the film into what you've written. See WP:NPOV as to why this is Bad. Additionally, it's not encyclopaedically written, and it's too long (most plot sections should be 700 words, see WP:PLOT. Geoff B ( talk) 14:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this , I think it should be kept. While in its current state, it is poorly written, I think it should be in a section somewhere that they've given Isaac a character of his own. This is just personal opinion and feel free to take it to the talk page, but I think it's notable and plenty of sites have talked about the change. -- 81.132.64.48 ( talk) 21:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind it being included, as long as it's sourced. Merely noting differences between DS and DS2 is not what the DS2 article is for. Geoff B ( talk) 21:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Nevertheless, I'll probably leave it for someone else to do. That page left a sour taste in my mouth after my attempts at even basic editing. -- 81.132.64.48 ( talk) 21:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverted myself and found a source for it. I'll do a little digging and see what more there is on it, thank you. It's a busy page thanks to the game's release, lot of editors with different ideas, etc. I always take myself off and edit something sedate. Geoff B ( talk) 22:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. -- 81.132.64.48 ( talk) 22:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Trying to put in the external link, what am i doing wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragon82aa ( talk • contribs) 21:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Trying to put in an external link to the movie site and not sure what I am doing wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragon82aa ( talk • contribs) 21:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Also it wasnt vandalism. I was reading the rules and it said that it was xbot seeing the link as a blogspot.com and you can do an undo to bring the posting back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragon82aa ( talk • contribs) 21:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where that link belongs in the article, if it belongs in there at all. Geoff B ( talk) 23:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have recently reverted an IP edit to the page in question. It seems that the editor felt it appropriate to add in the release dates of a number of nations such as Belize to the release field. This is quite similar in comparison to a sockpuppeteer from a while back who did the same to the article over a period of a few weeks.-- OsirisV ( talk) 01:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This chap? Oh he was a barrel of laughs. Another sock report will take care of him, I think. Geoff B ( talk) 02:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes - that guy. I'd have told you straight away, but finding a user on Wikipedia with an iPod is as realistic as an Italian tank commander winning a battle in the desert.-- OsirisV ( talk) 11:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Oh, no problem. If he does it again I'll report him. Geoff B ( talk) 11:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you read reviews of the movie? Have you followed the debate? You would realise that there is not a O of original research there. Go stick with gaming reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObodepmYWalls ( talk • contribs) 17:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Cite sources. Geoff B ( talk) 17:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's review. Your first edit adds a big chunk of original research/synthesis to the article, with a single source on the end that doesn't support hardly (if) any of your claims. I revert, pointing out in the edit summary that its unsourced POV, and leave a mild note on your talk page which points out a few things you may or may not know. I don't know if you're a new user or what, here. Okay, you know ref tags, but you can click edit and look at the guts of an article to work out how to use those easily. The wording of the note is actually nice and polite (though you later characterised it as abusive); it uses words like "welcome", "appreciate", etc and finishes with "thank you."

Somehow, this spurs you on to take a quick look through my edit history, and leave a nasty remark on my talk page. First, this fails WP:NPOV, because gaming isn't any less notable or worthy than film on Wikipedia (whatever your personal opinion of it is). Second, it fails WP:CIVIL because there's simply no need for it. You've made a classic mistake, because you've come to Wikipedia with a strong POV. You think that if I revert or oppose your edits, it's because my POV opposes yours, and I'm just using Wikipedia's policies to hide a great truth that must not be revealed to the world. The thing is, I'm not even interested in what your POV is, and if you could see past it, you'd realise that if you sourced your edits I'd be happy to leave the section in. I'm all for complete transparency on Wikipedia, but it's not an excuse to abuse someone. If you had bothered to take a close look at my edit history, or the article history, you'd see that I have been defending the article from vandals for quite a while ( here is my first edit, September 6, 2010, restoring a deleted plot summary) so saying I'm a vandal makes no sense at all.

But your approach is personal and adversarial. Note that your first revert adds a source which supports the claim in the latter half of your first sentence but the edit summary simply states 'rv'. You have no rationale for reverting. By your third revert you are characterising my edits as 'vandalist'. My edits are clearly not vandalism (see WP:VANDAL), nor are yours. It's a content dispute. If you have to resort to mud-slinging, it's a fairly sure sign that your argument is on shaky ground.

To top it all off, you then only respond on the talk page after watching my edits again and spotting my report ( 17:56 for the comment on my report, 17:58 for your comment on the article's talk page in response to me). Note that all your reverts ocurred within one or two minutes, but your talk page response takes more than twenty.

From your very first comment, you have treated me as an enemy. You have not looked at me as a fellow editor. I disagree with your edits because they lack sources. Whatever you think you know about me, you don't. You've never met me, as far as I know we have never spoken or even edited the same articles before. If we have, and I have somehow given you the idea that I'm an anti-whatever-you-think-I-am, please link me to it, by all means. If you have proof that I'm part (or the sole member) of a conspiracy dedicated to keeping your views off Wikipedia, please show me, report me, do whatever you feel is necessary. But do not simply throw shit at me. Geoff B ( talk) 21:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Brilliant, except you forgot to source your material. Again. Geoff B ( talk) 17:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Answered in article talk page. Please don't remove tags on a whim, without talking. My mistake was that I thought it was glaringly obvious to whoever does fact checking rather than looks solely at article format. 71.146.93.236 ( talk) 21:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't remove them on a whim. They shouldn't be added without the concerns being espoused on the talk page. Geoff B ( talk) 21:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is disagreed. (Do I have to explain why I want to delete article Jillian McCuddy "Jill has big boobs"?) But I do may see that quite a few share yours, so in the future I will follw your way, since it will decrease my trouble. 71.146.93.236 ( talk) 22:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)