Talk:Grumpy Cat's Worst Christmas Ever

Critical reception section
(cur | prev) 06:04, 4 January 2015‎ Winkelvi (talk | contribs)‎. . (8,490 bytes) (-495)‎. . (Reverted 1 edit by 72.240.137.150: Regardless, the entire quote is unnecessary, there were mixed reviews, and adding another negative review - especially a complete quote - is undue weight - take it to the article talk page. (TW)) (undo) So now it's down to "unnecessary" and "undue weight." And yet there are other quotes there. Before, the problem was the website was unreliable...until I showed you it wasn't. Whatever, dude -- typical Wiki arbitrary b.s.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.137.150 (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, definitely undue weight. And reviews of reliable sources of legitimate online sources should be preferred over a review of a half-baked online blog written by freelance writers. From what I've found online about Paul Mavis, he's likely his biggest fan. See my reasons as "arbitrary" if you wish, let's just keep the section from becoming bloated, shall we? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

"half-baked online blog written by freelance writers"?? Oh, dear, your snobby elitism is showing, ducky. Or perhaps more accurately: jealousy? Did you apply once to write there, and were turned down? Is that it? After all: you probably thought it better to have thousands of hits every day for all those half-baked reviews, along with all those other impertinent freelance writers...than being an anonymous nobody editor on Wiki, with the vast power to edit...Grumpy Cat entries. Now whose their own biggest fan, in their own mind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.137.150 (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)