User talk:Crotchety Old Man/Archive 2

Hi
Silence of the Lambs is not a horror movie and The Departed is by many definitions an action movie. There was no consensus to change silence of the lambs to horror thriller. Edye Flux (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Tom! Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sincere appologies
I sincerely regred causing any distress by calling you a sock of Pietru. I hope that you can forgive my falsely directed comments and that we can continue colaborating without future mistrust. Truly, I am deeply sorry, and beg of you to forgive me. -- Imbris (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My first, last, and only goal is to see you blocked from editing the Maltese dog article. End of story. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

re: Slumdog Millionaire edit
(stop being stupid) was a little uncalled for, I apologize if I reverted to an incorrect vandal reversion by User:Cluebot, there was no way of me knowing the last edit prior to this vandalism was also incorrect. No need to call anyone stupid, even if it is an immature little kid screwing up links. Just saying...Nicktfx (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not referring to you. Referring to the idiot who undid my revision, before you got involved.  Apology accepted, though. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Arnold Schwarzenegger article
I just checked the WP list of administrators and you're not on it so your threats of blocking me obviously have no teeth. As for the edit: Everything I put in that lead paragraph, regarding Gov. Schwarzenegger, is not only true but rather common knowledge, meaning that it neither qualifies as vandalism (an outrageous accusation) or a violation of WP's neutrality policy. However, I'm going to leave alone for the time being simply to avoid an edit war but don't be surprised if you see me change it in the future. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, but I can report you to AIV pretty easily. Keep adding your POV fluff to the article, and see where you end up. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And since you're a noob here, I'll give you a nickel's worth of free advice. Phrases like "he was a world famous, A-list, American movie actor" isn't quantifiable, is straight POV, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article.  As I've said, keep adding it, and see where that gets you. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The Hollywood "A-list", while not an official classification, is a widely used term applied to bankable movie stars, something I'm sure you already know. However my use of it hardly qualifies as vandalism or bias given the fact that it's true. A far more reasonable reaction to my edit would have been to remove "A-list" from the lead instead of reverting it entirely. Also, the lead as it appears currently, isn't worthy of Gov. Schwarzenegger stature. It reads like some obscure actor/businessman somehow stumbled into becoming governor of California. I recognize this despite the fact I'm an American liberal Democrat.


 * I can see that you've got an ownership issue with respect to this article, something frowned upon among Wikipedians. Also, you apparently like to throw around threats, something else frowned upon. Keep in mind when you report an editor for any violation, an administrator investigates YOUR behavior as well. Also, I can report you for a violation just as easily as you can report me. However, as I said before, I'm going to leave the article alone for the time being to avoid an edit war. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. You kids these days crack me up. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are you so negative about my editing?
The additions I made have been explained all over the talk page and in the archives of that same talk page. What do you exactly dislike about the recent additions? Why do you insist we write whose doctor was John Caius (he was doctor of many personalities, do we list them all?). -- Imbris (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A simple outline of what you want to add, and why, should suffice. I know the point is lost on you, but you've earned no good faith with respect to your editing.  You push a nationalistic POV, and you've been blocked for doing so.  Again, I understand that any attempt at rational discussion with you is futile.  My only hope is that you keep it up, to the point where you're banned from Wikipedia.  There's no point in wasting any time discussing things with you.  Furthermore, don't leave any more messages here.  I have nothing further to say to you. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: FindAnyFilm links
The addition of links to the UK website FindAnyFilm provides added value to those interested in film entries on Wikipedia in exactly the same way as links to Rotten Tomatoes and imdb do. It provides additional information for those interested in film. as links to imdb, Rotten Tomatoes and other film related sites are not removed, I fail to understand why links to FindAnyFilm should be removed. FindAnyFilm is a not for profit service in the UK, helping UK film fans get culturally and geographically relevant information about films. It is not a commercial site hoping to benefit from the popularity of Wikipedia. Please clarify your reasons for removing these links. User:DavidFilmFan —Preceding undated comment added 11:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC).
 * To clarify: they're spam links as far as Wikipedia policy is concerned. Good?  Crotchety Old Man (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No, your statement does not clarify; for example, the difference between links to Rotten Tomatoes which provides an independent aggregation of review information and FindAnyFilm which provides an independent aggregation of availability information. Please explain. User:DavidFilmFan 14:55, 5 May 2009
 * Your site adds nothing that isn't already outlined in the article (not to mention the possible copyright issues). Keep adding them, and you'll be gone pretty quickly. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

RFA comments
Your comments don't seem to advance the process of deciding Skomorokh's RFA. On the other hand they do read like a personal attack on me. Please don't do that. Groomtech (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yawn. At least Kurt Weber was amusing.  Now run along. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the comments were perfectly warranted. Not meaning to imply anything, but Groomtech's single-minded and POINTy opposes remind me of another user named _ _ _ _ _tech... r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 19:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have asked for comments at Wikiquette_alerts. Groomtech (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

OK then, matter solved
Judging from your last answer to me, and from pretty much most of your talk page (which I basically read diagonally out of curiosity), I think it is my duty, and my responsibility as a person of taste and discrimination, to concede you a victory in this small battle of yours, as well as wish it is truly worth investing your free time in doing what you're doing here. I'm sorry but I just don't have much free time and I'd rather invest it in interacting with some other kind of individual; I hope you don't take it personally (I'd be devastated if you did). Good luck in your further little battles, and keep enriching wikipedia since that appears to be you leitmotiv. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew you'd see it my way. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Berger summary comment
Regarding your comments while editing Peter E. Berger: Yes, I know how Wikipedia works, and I know it uses a reference list as opposed to simply adding the links. I've been here off and on for a few years now, after all. I also knew that someone would come along and turn the links into references; I don't particularly like using the reference format, though I can see how it is useful. Out of curiosity, though, did you add the refimprove template because the links weren't properly formatted or because you felt there needed to be a citation for the awards and nominations? Either way, it seems to be a misuse of that template since, in the former case, that's not what the template is for, and in that latter case, there was a link to Berger's IMDb profile which includes all awards and nominations. Also, if you added the template because the links weren't formatted, you could have just formatted the links yourself rather than adding a template. I'm just sayin'. :) --From Andoria with Love (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Die Hard
I see that instead of encouraging some kind of discussion you have decided to revert the edit and bring in the old 3RR. Obviously, being a long term editor I have some idea of the Wikipedia process and will respect it. However I do find the fact that you are either unwilling or unable to discuss the matter slightly worrying and would ask you to reconsider the matter, as your notion that I am in the minority does not necessarily mean that I am wrong and I feel that I have put a perfectly reasonable argument across. I would also point out I think that your "laughable" argument is flawed. As it is, I will step back, take a breather and come back to it in about 16-17 hours. Stay frosty. (Quentin X (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Cool. We'll be there to revert you again.  May wanna use that time out to look up the meaning of a "starring role" in a film. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know that I've asked an admin to keep an eye on this. And I obviously don't need to tell you that if we go round this wheel again tomorrow, you will be the one potentially violating the 3RR. Therefore I urge you to give a cogent argument on the discussion page otherwise this triviality, for which which I am more than happy to continuously press my case, will probably end up in mediation. (Quentin X (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC))


 * If you think Paul Gleason had a starring role in Die Hard, there's no point in discussing this rationally with you. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Give me your rationale, I've already given you mine. (Quentin X (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

Sockpuppetry Accusation
Sorry if you took any offence in my comments to the administrator. It wasn't intended to be an accusation, more of a request for the admin to look at any discrepancies between yourself and the other user as you were both arguing the same point at pretty much the same time. I'm sure you'll agree with me that it's best to be vigilant. Stay frosty. {Quentin X (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Oh don't worry. Every time someone finds him- or herself on the losing end of an argument, they break out the "well he MUST be a sock-puppet" argument.  You aren't the first; you won't be the last. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you may have got the wrong end of the stick, Mr Man. I wasn't apologising, just giving you the facts. I think you'll find the only one throwing baseless accusations around is you. But you already know that, don't you. (Quentin X (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC))