User talk:Crotchety Old Man/Archive 1

Crotchety - There is nothing inappropriate or spam about the link from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Stop Whitewashing the page or I will request that you be blocked from editing wikipedia. CampusFreedom (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already filed a report on you at UAA. Hope you enjoyed your short stay here at Wikipedia.  Peddle your warez elsewhere.  Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing Warez about the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, also it is a violation of the rules to impune the my motives as "warez" or any kind of illegal conduct. CampusFreedom (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, you're obviously associated with thefire.org, meaning there's an obvious conflict of interest, and your username is spam. I'll wait until you're blocked to revert your spam addition again.  Adios. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I do NOT work for FIRE. I am a part of the IUSB Community.CampusFreedom (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Crotchety - according to the rules you are required to use Dispute Resoltion - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CampusFreedom (talk • contribs) 15:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Template on A. R. Rahman
Hi. Please refrain from using this template, as it is section specific, and not warranted on this article as it is reliable cited. Thanks. Clubover (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I placed the refimprove|section tag, as the lead section needs additional refs. It stays. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Total Recall
Thanks for contacting me. We had a discussion about it at WP:FILMS in the past, indicating that the single linking of the year in film in the intro provided a guide for the other films released that year (which provides further details in what other films it was released with in the same week as well as box office performance). The linking should not be used in the rest of the article unless there is some commentary covering the details of the films released that year. Anyway, since you have already reverted it twice already, I don't see a need to stop you, so no worries there. If you have further questions let me know on my talk page. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Upon further review, I've seen this type of change being made recently. If there's an actual template for it, then I'm assuming people have lightened up about it. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think it was created in the last year. Say, looking over your edits with so many film articles, maybe you should consider becoming a member of WP:FILMS. If you're interested, you can sign up here. You'll get to enjoy amazing perks such as collaboration with other members, numerous ongoing discussions, and a monthly newsletter. There are other perks too, but there isn't enough room here to mention them all. Anyway, keep up the good work on improving articles and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Donte Stallworth
That was not vandalism. 71.112.162.234 (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep removing sourced material. See where that gets you. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
See Juliancolton's response to your support (currently #84)  NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 17:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thunder 1000000 External links
You removed them as external links but they were OK when they were under references? Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Nothing listed as a "reference" in that pathetic excuse for an article is "OK".  If the AfD fails, I'm deleting the 2 current "sources" as they are blogs. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying as you didn't change anything in the article including the blog references, but when I moved them to External links you removed them. Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have a point, I'm failing to see it, and you're failing to make it. Blogs don't belong in Wikipedia articles, which is why I removed them.  Rest assured, the remaining two "sources" will be removed soon enough. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thunder 1000000 Google link

 * Ha. Thunder 100000 is still getting views because it comes up and appears on the first page of a Google search still. Daniel Christensen (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is long gone, which is the only thing I cared about. Better luck next time. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

About Maltese_(dog)
G'day Crotchety Old Man - I've reverted and rewritten the Maltese article, and archived the previous talk page. It seems to be sticking (at least up to now...) 122.200.166.113 (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. That article was beyond repair with all the stupid crap going on. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Twin Cities
Why did your remove the reference of New York and Brooklyn being twin cities prior to 1898? (For that matter, why did you also remove the reference to Dallas and Fort Worth?)  MCB in Boulder/4/14/200967.177.195.177 (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Crazy thing about Wikipedia. You need citations to have things added.  And the notion of DFW being a "twin city" is downright laughable. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't add Dallas-Fort Worth to the article, so I am not offended that you called its inclusion "laughable." But the fact that you abbreviated it as "DFW" seems to indicate there is some link between the two Texas cities.  As for New York and Brooklyn before 1898 (which I did add), I can give you a citation from a source that claimed them to be twin cities.  What about the 1883 Emma Lazarus poem, "The New Colossus," which contains the line, "The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame"?  I'm sure you've heard of it; it is mounted on a plaque inside the Statue of Liberty.  Is that adequate evidence to include New York and Brooklyn before 1898 as twin cities?  As for needing "citations to have things added," I always thought Wikipedia worked like a Ph.D. dissertation, in that citations are only necessary when the information isn't common knowledge.  Am I wrong about that?  Does Wikipedia also require citations for things that are common knowledge?  MCB in Boulder 4/14/200967.177.195.177 (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't responded to my comments, so I am going to go ahead and restore nineteenth-century New York and Brooklyn into the list of twin cities. I am not going to include a citation because it is not necessary.  That those two boroughs were once thought of as twin cities is a fact that is common knowledge.  Every culturally literate American should know Emma Lazarus's poem, "The New Colossus."  However, I will offer two citations to satisfy you.  Both are articles from nineteenth-century New York-area newspapers.  In an 1892 article about public transportation between Manhattan and Long Island, a New York newspaper said a bill signed by the governor would be "likely to be of such benefit to the material interests of the twin cities of New-York and Brooklyn."  (The New York Times, "Signed as Amended: Gov. Flower on the East River Bridge and Railroad Bills," May 10, 1892, page 5.)  In an 1878 article on how a Brooklyn cemetery offered a peaceful retreat from the bustling metropolis, a Brooklyn newspaper said, "The time has gone by when the remark of that pleasure loving Frenchman about the attraction of the twin cities was true.  He said that, 'the only place of popular resort in which he was shown upon a visit to New York were a park and a cemetery."  (The Brooklyn Eagle, "Greenwood: The Cemetery as a Popular Resort," August 27, 1878, Page 4.)  I invite you to look up these citations if you are not satisfied.  Furthermore, if you wish to add these as footnotes, be my guest.  As I said, I don't think it is necessary because this is common knowledge.  MCB in Boulder, 4/15/2009 67.177.195.177 (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I must say, I got another good LOL at your definition of "common knowledge." But by all means, keep adding uncited material, and see where you end up. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sir, you truly are a bully. The previous editor is correct, common knowledge does not need to be cited. (Where did you get your Ph.D. in which your advisor told you otherwise?)   But, to please YOU, I have restored his revision and added the citations mentioned in his  note above.  Remember now, if you delete cited material, you are committing vandalism, and I will have to report you to the Wikipedia administrators.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.162.108 (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. I love anonymous editors.  They're so cute. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sir, some of us are anonymous because we work for universities, and editing Wikipedia is frowned upon by academia. We have some specialized knowledge that we like to share, but we don't want to damage our reputation when we publish scholarly works.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.229.152 (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I gave you citations showing that New York and Brooklyn were considered twin cities before 1898, and yet you still don't seem satisfied. Why did you apply a warning icon to my talk page?  Aren't the citations enough?  What else do you want me to do?  (Most of the entries in the Twin City article don't have any citations at all.  Are you deleting them, as well?)   By the way, I looked up Wikipedia's verification policy.  It clearly states that "mainstream newspapers" are "verifiable" sources.  There is no newspaper more mainstream than the New York Times.  It is available on microfilm in nearly every library in the country.  Issues published before 2005 are also readily available on-line through ProQuest.  The Brooklyn Eagle was also a mainstream newspaper, until it folded in the mid-1960s.  How am I violating Wikipedia policy?  Let me know, and I'lll make whatever other changes you want.  Also, why are you so rude to me in your comments?  My comments to you were written in a polite tone.  MCB in Boulder 4/15/200967.177.195.177 (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Another editor bailed you out, by adding some actual citations. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 11:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And I highly suggest you rework your thoughts on "common knowledge." Water being wet, or the sky being blue is common knowledge.  To say that an Emma Lazarus poem is common knowledge is downright dumb.  If you take some time and learn how Wikipedia works, you may actually get to stick around.  Crotchety Old Man (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, no one “bailed me out.” The citations that another editor added were citations that I gave to you.  You had the information and so you knew my claim about New York and Brooklyn being twin cities was true, and yet you still deleted my revision.  I am not willing to pursue this point with Wikipedia administrators, but isn’t deleting something you know to be true considered vandalism?  On that point, that other editor actually bailed you out, by restoring a valid edit and by adding the citation you already had.


 * Secondly, I think you are confused by the definition of common knowledge. Common knowledge does not mean common knowledge as understood by three-year-olds.  Many universities use the “three source rule”: a fact is common knowledge if it can be found in three independent sources.  Yale University defines common knowledge as “knowledge that most educated people know or can find out easily in an encyclopedia or dictionary.”  Yale even admits that “there is a body of common knowledge that an outsider might not know.” And, although some reference books suggest that, when in doubt, cite it, Yale warns that “you don’t want to over-cite.”  (You might find the Yale instructions on common knowledge useful.  They can be found at http://www.yale.edu/bass/writing/sources/plagiarism/common.html.)


 * As none of the other information in the article contained citations, I believed it was not necessary to include citations on New York and Brooklyn. I don’t think that most people are familiar with South Bend & Mishawaka, Indiana, or Bloomington & Normal, Illinois, yet you did not delete that material for lack of a citation.  Why not?  My revision was based on Emma Lazarus’s poem, “The New Colossus,” which virtually every American has read (or at least heard of), even if they don’t remember it.  I would suggest that only Minneapolis-St. Paul and possibly Sault Ste. Marie meet a better common knowledge definition than New York and Brooklyn.


 * As for your comment that I might “actually get to stick around,” I find that statement almost offensive. I have been editing Wikipedia since 2005, and I have an electronic paper trail of edits that goes back to 2007, when I last changed servers.  Unless you recently switched servers, your activity on Wikipedia only goes back two months.   Also, most of your edits seem to be undoing other people’s revisions, which is a shame because someone of your age (judging from your user name) must have constructive additions to make.   Wisdom comes with age; why not share some of your wisdom with others?


 * Finally--and I mean this in the best possible manner--you should consider lightening up on others. Most of the contributors to Wikipedia make their revisions in good faith.  Your comments, however, have been full of sarcasm.  Yet, when another editor took you to task by calling you a bully, you immediately reported it as a personal attack.  I am not suggesting that you are a bully, but your sarcasm doesn't come across very well in this forum.  Remember, you can attract more flies by honey...."   MCB in Boulder/4/16/200967.177.195.177 (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that I'm wasting my time. My time is better spent pushing rope.  Stay off my talk page, unless you have something constructive to add.  And based on your track record, I ain't holding my breath.  Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Maltese (dog)
I'd like to thank you for continuing to keep an eye on this article. I was hoping you could find the time to make a few comments in the discussion. Any opinion about any of the issues under discussion would be much appreciated, even if you disagree with me. It's just that it's primarily me and Imbris right now and it makes it tough to resolve anything when we disagree. Mango juice talk 04:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have such a negative view of Imbris right now that I won't be able to add any neutral comments. I feel bad that you are the only one that's making any effort of resolving this.  For the past couple months now, my only advice has been to ban both Imbris and Pietru from the article, as the bickering has degraded so much.  I like the actual Maltese dog, but to be honest, don't really care about the whole history of it, especially when it's nothing more than the basis for a huge, months-long edit war. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

March of the Penguins
You entered false citation to the article on "March of the Penguins." The journal article you cited (Pete Porter, review of March of the Penguins, in Society and Animals 14 (2006): 204-06.) does not discuss the issue of penguins being exposed to human pheromones at all. The journal article in question can be accessed online at http://www.animalsandsociety.org/assets/library/614_reviewsection.pdf. If you look at the article, you can see there is no discussion in it about penguins being exposed to humans. If you have another source you can cite, please insert that into the article.198.11.27.91 (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't add any citations. I just watch for vandalism.  If you want to delete something, then use an edit summary to explain.  If I see someone randomly deleting things without saying why, I revert. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. That's an innocent mistake on your part.  (Thanks for the tip about edit summaries.  I did include one about it being a bogus citation when I deleted the footnote.)  You should try to be careful, too.  Fabricating sources is a serious charge.  That is why they fired Ward Churchill.  When possible, you should double check footnotes before you re-insert them.  In this case, it would have been easy enough to do.  The journal is available online at no charge, and the article was only three or four pages in length.  It wouldn't have taken any time at all to check it out before you re-inserted the footnote.  You want to be sure to protect yourself.  The inclusion of false material (even if you didn't originate it) could get you banned from editing Wikipedia, and that really wouldn't be in anyone's interest, especially yours.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.11.27.72 (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. Shut up, IP. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)