User talk:Crotchety Old Man/Archive 4

3RR note.
Hi, please take care and stop reverting on the Richard Gere article as you are close to a violation, try to wait and discuss. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No need. 3RR doesn't apply to BLP violations, which is what this was. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I thought it was fair to comment to you both. Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, go right ahead and keep removing that. Good work. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Btw COM, congrats on (and thanks for) doing a better job than I did with checking on that article to help make sure that BLP stayed enforced. There are just too many pages for me to police (especially since I don't really edit much any more), and it's good to know that someone is still paying attention and keeping things in compliance. :) 209.90.133.214 (talk) 03:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Apology
Re Talk:Fear (film): Thanks for your explanation in answer to my question. I'm sorry I made one-sided comments when apparently the other user had been being more uncivil than you. To the extent that I've examined your edit, I agree that your version of the article is better. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because you have a smiley face in your sig, there's no hard feelings. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL! Thanks! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Question
But can you honestly say with a straight face that responding in kind (whether it is kiddie template warnings, personal attacks, harassment, or whatever) would have greater chances of resolving/dissolving dispute/controversy than if you took the right way out? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're subtly accusing me of, so just come out and say it. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What you seemed to suggest at ANI was that if an user gives you a kiddie template warning, then we should issue such template warnings back - so my question was to clarify whether this approach is effective in resolving/dissolving dispute/controversy. Let me reword it for your benefit. If you encountered template warnings/attacks/whatever, how would you respond? Don't you think it would be appropriate to respond in a way that shows the user how they should've approached the issue to begin with? Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not suggesting anything. Just pointing out that WebHamster did the very same thing to me.  But he's gone now, and life is back to normal. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And WebHamster wasn't worthy of any level-headed discussion or maturity, since he failed miserably at exhibiting any of those traits. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Constantine
They aren't cites supporting the content. Look again. Viriditas (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "According to the DVD commentary..." implies a primary source, and is easily verifiable. Direct citations to the novel could be added, which is why I tagged the section for refimprove. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The information about the DVD commentary is not clear at all. Are we talking about plot or production?  Design or CGI?  It isn't clear at all, except that that it is shoved in there to make it look like the first and last sentence are supported.  Then, it follows with a comparison between the book and the film, but this is entirely unsourced.  Again, we see the use of a source making it look like it supported, but the reference is only to the book.  Same problem.  Next we see another description from the book and a  comparison to the film, again unsourced.  There's nothing salvageable here, it's pure OR. Viriditas (talk) 12:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm on your side, don't worry. I've deleted a ton of listcruft crap from the article already.  But someone at least put minimal effort into the section.  Give the fanboys a few weeks, and if (when) they don't improve it, go ahead and remove it. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely with you on that. Unless it's egregious, I tend to leave the content in for a bit, however, this appears borderline.  I'm also unhappy about what was done to the plot by a recent editor.  Could you take a whack at it?  It should be about 700 words, not 70,000. :) Viriditas (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. Didn't even notice that.  I thought there was a shorter version a while back.  I might check the page history to see if that could be salvaged. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Paper Planes
Please stop edit warring, as you've done with the Paper Planes page. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Also, please remember to remain civil and calm. Thank you. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Critical Response section of The Proposal 2009 Touchstone Film
you might want to take a look at this review and use an excerpt for the Critical Response section. Noticed a few editors felt the write up was a tad "light". If you take the time you will find this review has some good stuff worth including. The review runs from page 182 through 191.

http://midnighttracks.net/2009/page182

Good luck!

76.175.205.126 (talk) 10:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Response notification
Hi Crotchety, I responded to your posts on Talk:Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 16:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Shining
Dear Mr. Man (or may I call you Crotchety?), Actually the "Comparisons" section of "The Shining" still has too many citations from main primary materials such as the novel itself and not enough from secondary sources (other critics), which still leaves it marginally in OR territory according to WP guidelines. However, as noted in earlier talk page discussions, the issue of Jack Torrance's characterization is easy to cite since it has been discussed ad infinitum given that it was Stephen King's biggest problem with Stanley Kubrick's film and King was very vocal about it, and it was the prime motivator behind King's desire to do a TV remake. Ergo, easy to cite. Other issues like the characterization of Danny and the motivation of the ghosts are easy to spot, but vastly less discussed in easy-to-find secondary sources. In essence, half the subject has been commented on widely (due to it being a hot-button issue with King), and half the subject little discussed. However, a WP discussion probably needs to cover ALL the differences not just the ones that got Stephen King hot and bothered. The Danny section (and motivation/ghosts section) is still problematic since it cites primary sources (the book itself). However, I'm inclined to view this as a legit case of WP:Ignore.

I remain frustrated that since Stephen King and Stanley Kubrick have the same initials, I can not abbreviate either to SK.

Regards,--WickerGuy (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

4th Duke of Aosta
Now that Imbris has requested (multiple times) for me to stop contacting him on his talkpage, I see your fellas points. 'Tis too bad, though. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Bah, if he doesn't want to talk - don't talk to him. When he attacks you just report him... you don't even have to notify him now that he's banned you from his talkpage. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 22:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh well, he aint the first to make such a request of me. I'll survive. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't let it get you down, you'll get over him soon, you'll see ;D -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 23:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

3RR on Talk:Richard Gere
I saw this issue show up on the 3RR board. Your removal of Talk comments put you apparently in the wrong, although you would have been supported 110% on the BLP issue by a whole phalanx of administrators. It might have been better for you to present the case at ANI when you saw people starting to argue once again for the notability of the gerbil issue, instead of your trying to remove the talk comments of the people making that proposal. Some talk pages have a FAQ so that newcomers can be notified of issues that have already been discussed to death. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

UAA report on Master of Puppets
What's the basis of this report? MoP has edited for a long time and is an admin; I doubt he would be if there had been username concerns. Even if he were a new user, I wouldn't consider this promotional. Did you hit the wrong name on Twinkle, by chance? Daniel Case (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm confused as well. I think I'll go crack open an ice-cold Pepsi to refresh myself while I consider your report on my Sony laptop while sitting on this luxurious and affordable Laz-E-Boy sofa. Master of Puppets  15:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously he isn't promoting anything. But if he were a new user, and I hope I don't take this in the wrong direction or something, it would look like he's promoting the Metallica album... I hope your report isn't serious COM... I mean, I'm the name of a Metallica song, heh. Cheers. Until It Sleeps  Talk •  Contribs 15:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Old Man
Do you have no arguments to support that Dakota Fanning/Natalie Portman is an action movie actress?. 201.27.172.189 (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Tom! A bit of advice: find a new shtick. If you stopped making the same idiotic edits over and over and over, you might get to stick around a bit. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So that's the best you got to prove DF/NP are action movie actresses. I liked your detailed descriptions. 201.27.172.189 (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By all means, keep edit-warring on the article. I'm all for getting your IP range-blocked. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't answered my question, how in the world are Dakota Fanning (if she never played an action part in the FEW action movies she appeared in) abd Batakue Portman (if the only action sequence she did was on TPM) action movie actresses? I think you should put Britney Spears on that list, Crossroads was a super action movie lol. 201.27.172.189 (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm
Though I do see you defending against abuse on various articles, I wonder if this removal of a courteous comment on your own talk page should really be described as removing 'vandalism'? If you think people are socks, report them. The observation that you are an infrequent participant on the talk page at Black Hawk Down (film), considering that you believed the issues important enough to file a 3RR complaint about, seems fair. Admins prefer to see that people who bring complaints to noticeboards are making reasonable efforts to resolve the issues by direct conversations. The fact that you had your Talk protected against comments from IPs reduces still further your opportunities to negotiate. EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to this edit, which was placed after a talk page comment of mine was removed. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And funny you mention the protection of my talk page. Made in response to the absolute ineffectiveness of the existing Admins to do anything worthwhile about removing sockpuppets from this site.  How ironic. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So, Betty gets no credit for diplomacy either. Can you tell me about some of your reports at WP:Sockpuppet investigations that have been improperly neglected? EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on how the edit-warring noticeboard operates, I think it's safe to assume you guys are equally as worthless elsewhere. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Starting to personalize disputes? Your 3RR case probably languished because no admin wanted to endorse the more blatant and aggressive version of the article, that wanted to include the lower-quality sources. Since I considered you a sort of warrior against abuses on BLPs, I wondered why the socks seemed to be on the good side, and you on the other (though this article is not exactly a BLP). EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3RR has nothing to do with the version of the article "being endorsed". Based on my report, now I know I won't be blocked for violating 3RR if I ever do, since nothing happened to the IP in question.  Great work! Crotchety Old Man (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine Arts Building (Los Angeles)
Hi. I have declined your speedy on this article: it doesn't really fit WP:CSD because although it is very short the context is clear, and I think, per the author's plea on the talk page, that it is an acceptable stub capable of improvement. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)