User talk:Petrsw

MIT cubed
Another editor has added the  template to the article MIT cubed, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of MIT cubed
An editor has nominated MIT cubed, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings film trilogy
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Alientraveller (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Now be very careful and observe WP:NOR and WP:MOSFILMS. Not everyone has read the books either and is willing to verify it in such an unwieldy manner. Alientraveller (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is, you're adding your interpretation of the book. This is about notable people criticising Jackson's, and unfortunately the edits read like an editorial, not a critic's arguement. Perhaps it should read something like "[They] felt Gandalf was too strong because he fights Saruman and performs an exorcism on Theoden, feeling this was at odds with the book where he only silences Grima and presents Theoden with the choice of battling Saruman. [They] also criticized the characterization of Faramir and his relationship with Frodo (and his relationship with his brother Boromir). In the novel, both Faramir and Boromir are presented with the same choice. They make exactly opposite decisions: Boromir to attempt the ring from Frodo, Faramir to trust Frodo and deny the ring. Seen in this light, the choices are starker and imperatives clearer. [He] clouded the strong contrast between the two, and themes of moral choice, right action and character that run throughout the novel."
 * Just how much of this is in the source? Alientraveller (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Still, how much of that is accurate to the source then? Alientraveller (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I must agree with Alientraveller on this instance: Please do not post your own interpretation. If it isn't your interpretation, and is a well-known book critic's, please source the critic. The Ring-Bearer BlackPearl14 18:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation
What has been said above is also valid for Themes of The Lord of the Rings. I have removed your additions about fate and free will and temptation. Please provide independent and reliable sources for such analyses but do not add your own interpretation. De728631 (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Incendiary device, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ignition (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at No Country for Old Men (film). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * WP:PLOT states, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." The long-standing consensus is that between 400 and 700 words is sufficient but does allow flexibility for more complex films. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on secondary sources (in other words, about production and reception), and a plot summary is only supposed to provide context for these subtopics. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

3RR warning
You've reverted three times today on No Country for Old Men (film). One more revert there could lead to disciplinary actions. Please go to discussion with your issue. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Trigonometry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Planar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chronograph, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Complications (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chronograph, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tachymeter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)