User talk:PDAWSON3

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Spiro Agnew. 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. --Strothra 22:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have only just seen this. Shameless hypocrisy from Strothra - who may have been the anonymous editor who blanked the page in February. Strothra opened up an edit war and then sent a pre-emptive 3rr warning. Anyway, he/she does not appear to exist on Wikipedia any more. No tears from me. PDAWSON3 (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sytten

Hi, Pdawson3. I noticed you added a comment by a reviewer to the Sytten article. It will need to have the reviewer's name as well as a cited source. It would be great if you could add that. Cheers — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, CactusWriter. You're obviously right, but it was more than 40 years ago and I have no access to the source these days. I just remember it as a witty comment. If lack of source leads to the comment's deletion, I shall quite understand. PDAWSON3 (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I didn't realize you were quoting from memory. It's a shame because it could be a good comment to include. Was there a particular newspaper you read back then? If so, there could be a possibility of doing an archive search. Just a thought. Otherwise, yes, I'm afraid that a quote like that can't remain without sourcing. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, I was an avid film buff in those days and I read reviews from wherever I could find them. A friend just pointed out that the joke is (i) obvious and (ii) matches a earlier joke in Get Smart, where Max (Agent 86) is discussing Agent 43 with Agent 99, who says "you're worth two 43s, 86.". I'll remove the comment myself.PDAWSON3 (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits. Per Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. The rule of thumb is that only vandalism/test reversions or edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modifying content should be flagged as "minor". Thank you. Baron Larf 07:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]