User talk:Petrsw
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] MIT cubed
Another editor has added the {{prod}} 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 Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia: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 {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MIT cubed 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)
[edit] 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 Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. 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-BearerBlackPearl14 18:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
