", 5 July 2015 (UTC) 
 :::: Insulting my intelligence certainly qualifies as a WP:PA. This isn't some kind of argument and I'm not an enemy; you're supposed to be engaging in a legitimate discussion as to why this information should be included, not trying to ""deal"" with those who don't agree with you. This is the last of my involvement in this bizarrely combative incident (I'm going to avoid you entirely in the future after reading all of your truly awkward and self-aggrandizing paragraphs on your user page detailing all of the times your teachers supposedly lavished praise on you and begged you to go into a variety of fields because of your supposed otherworldly intellect; that was surreal to read), but you seem to have misunderstood the proceedings above. The initial argument started with several users objecting to the inclusion of some ""fan criticism"" that referenced the opinions of ""men's rights activists"". This was removed promptly for obvious reasons. You then went back and re-added this information and expanded upon it. This obviously doesn't constitute a ""brief mention"", something that Cyphoidbomb was noncommittal about in his overall discention in regards to its inclusion. You included far too much of Parramore's opinion; it was larger than the entire rest of the paragraph. There's no need to address the opinions of a few misogynists marketing themselves as ""men's rights activists"" who criticized the movie; it represents a WP:FRINGE opinion and should not be included. While I generally like the information you added and agree with Parramore's overall sentiment in regards to the insecurities of those male critics, it still addresses a WP:FRINGE opinion and was far too lengthy, signifying WP:UNDUE, as Sock said. The brief sentence or two that now references the opinions of feminists is all that is required as it represents the view of a legitimate activist group. Like the users I've pointed to stated above, there is no need to address the opinions of a small band of misogynists.    20:40"