User talk:Geoff B
Please note, if you message me on here, I will respond on here. If I message you on your talk page, we'll carry the conversation out on there. Thank you.
Reliable sources[edit]
"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves"
Perhaps you need to have another go at understanding the Wikipedia policies?
In your own time... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandrews (talk • contribs) 21:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- It must be a relief to be so ignorant. I wish I could just edit articles and use the subject's name as a source. Geoff B (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Whereas it must be quite nauseating to be so pompous. Clearly you don't understand the difference between the English auxiliaries "should" and "must". The verifiability policy actually states that a person can be a source of information about themselves! How shocking. Which school Robert Lawrence attended before Fettes is hardly contentious ("Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person...") and easily verified by simply contacting the man himself ("The policy on sourcing is Verifiability"). And don't forget, "... in practice not everything need actually be attributed." Alexandrews (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Snakebite (shandy)[edit]
Re your recent reverts. Creme de cassis IS blackcurrant. The word "cordial" is obsolete in this context, and there is little point in trying to revive it. Please see sources in the lead section of Liqueur. Wahrmund (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Except blackcurrant cordial, in the UK, doesn't contain alcohol. It's a kind of squash, which you dilute with water, and is commonly given to all ages (e.g. Ribena). Geoff B (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Please reconsider your behavior[edit]
This edit, and this one and especially this one are not very nice, and I ask you to treat people in a nicer way. It is wrong to turn a very minor editing dispute into personal attacks.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's also wrong to take the piss by deliberately ignoring or misintetpreting wikipedia policies/guidelines in order to include original research, and it's also wrong to caution one disputing party but not the other. I find myself falling short of WP:CIVIL when other editors ignore or twist things like WP:OR/WP:RS and so on to their liking. A foible of mine, but we wouldn't want excellent editors like Andrews to be hindered, I suppose. Geoff B (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- The key is that violations of WP:CIVIL are not useful or productive in correcting WP:OR/WP:RS problems. Being kind to people, assuming good faith, helping them find good sources are very helpful. Hollering at people doesn't make them want to do better; offering thoughtful and kind advice often does. I hope that you take my remarks in that spirit. I think you're a good editor and I think it is important that people do take WP:OR/WP:RS seriously, and I sided with you in this case on the content issue. I'm just saying, cut the guy some slack, he's a newbie and obviously trying to do good.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Geoff_B, I partly understand why you said what you did, and - without wishing to patronize - I've been there, done that. Just...oh, I don't know how to say it. Have a cup of tea before hitting 'save'. You're good; you could be brilliant. Jwales is agreeing with our philosophy, just arguing about phraseology. Are you a Brit, Geoff_B? I'm guessing you might be, from your user-page/contribs. Well - and I think Mr. Wales will understand - there are significant cultural differences. And it has taken me a long time to see this. In England, politicians sit on opposite sides of the house, right? And shout a lot. In the USA, they sit at a round table, and nod a lot. I sincerely hope this posting is constructive. Chzz ► 03:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- The key is that violations of WP:CIVIL are not useful or productive in correcting WP:OR/WP:RS problems. Being kind to people, assuming good faith, helping them find good sources are very helpful. Hollering at people doesn't make them want to do better; offering thoughtful and kind advice often does. I hope that you take my remarks in that spirit. I think you're a good editor and I think it is important that people do take WP:OR/WP:RS seriously, and I sided with you in this case on the content issue. I'm just saying, cut the guy some slack, he's a newbie and obviously trying to do good.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Punctuation through translation[edit]
Could it at all be possible for an agreement to be reached over the spelling of a particular virus featured in the Resident Evil series of games? The Japanese-language versions of the games use the spelling "t-virus" absolutely everywhere, while the English-language versions are punctuated based simply on how the translator preferred it.
- Resident Evil Zero uses "t-virus"
- Resident Evil 3: Nemesis uses "T-virus"
- Resident Evil (original) uses both.
Can we reach an agreement over site-wide wide usage (as in, all Resident Evil articles, of course) of a particular punctuation? I have noticed that articles themselves vary in punctuation based on the preference of the editor, as well.-- OsirisV (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Main page appearance: Resident Evil 2[edit]
This is a note to let the main editors of Resident Evil 2 know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 8, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 8, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:
Resident Evil 2 is a survival horror video game originally released for the PlayStation in 1998. Developed by Capcom as the second installment in the Resident Evil series, its story takes place two months after the events of the first game, Resident Evil. It is set in Raccoon City, a Midwestern American mountain community whose residents have been transformed into zombies by the T-virus, a biological weapon developed by the pharmaceutical company Umbrella. In their escape from the city, the two protagonists, Leon S. Kennedy and Claire Redfield, encounter other survivors, and are confronted by William Birkin, the mutated creator of the G-virus, a more powerful variation of the T-virus. The gameplay of Resident Evil 2 focuses on exploration, puzzle solving and combat, and features typical survival horror elements such as limited saves and ammunition. The game's main difference from its predecessor is the "Zapping System", which provides each playable character with unique storylines and obstacles. Resident Evil 2 was well received by critics, who praised its atmosphere, setting, graphics and audio. Its controls, voice acting and inventory system were criticized, however, and certain reviewers disliked its puzzles. The game has become a million-seller, and is the franchise's most successful title on a single platform. Years after its first release, Resident Evil 2 was included in several lists of the 100 best games. (more...)
UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
EarwigBot operator / talk 22:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)