User talk:Nitramrekcap

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Hannah Murray, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Doctor Who. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. magnius (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Doctor Who

Hi Nitramrekcap, I noticed that on the talk page, you started three identical sections titled "Who played The First Doctor in The Five Doctors in 1983?" with the exact same content... I was wondering if, for the sake of cleaning up the talk page a bit, you'd be willing to remove the first two (which didn't have any replies). (I'm strictly talking about the identical sections that are back to back, and have no replies to them, not the third one with replies at the bottom of the page.) Thanks, umrguy42 16:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop trying to continue a closed debate. You opinion has been well documented by now. Continuing to force the issue is not productive. That is why your comment has been reverted, and will continue to be reverted if you post it again. — Edokter • Talk • 14:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: DoctorWhoForum

Honestly, I'm not really concerned with the consensus over there. I'm well aware that from a Who-centric POV the article could use expansion, but you seem to be missing the point that this is not how Wikipedia is supposed to present information. You personally have the view (from all interpretations available) that it is impossibly to present this information in a valid way without including it on the table. I feel that this is incorrect, and more to the point that inclusion in that particular manner would only cause confusion among non-familiar readers. At any rate, the topic is closed for the indeterminate future, so I do suggest moving on to something else. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Nitramrekcap,

Your arguments that Hurndall/McCoy deserve more credit come across more as a fan theory than a convincing reason to change these entries in an encyclopedia. While there are plenty of fan forums where this'd be welcome, Wikipedia works on verifiability and consensus truth--neither of which are noted for producing veracity.

There are things I don't like in some entries, but either can't be bothered to change, or have found a clique who disagree with me are dominating it currently. In either case it's pointless protracting the argument, perhaps if you come back in six months some of the people who disagree with you will have moved on? MartinSFSA (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Commonwealth realm

The term is a modern one, in use since the 1950s. Please read the article Commonwealth realm and its associated sources for further info on the subject, and note that "British Commonwealth realms" is a neologism, there being only one British realm in the Commonwealth: the United Kingdom. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Order of Merit. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Winston Spencer-Churchill

Previous discussion and a huge majority of reliable sources have declared that the above is the correct name of Winston Churchill, and that there is no hyphen in his name. Please do not add one. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

WRONG!

Nitramrekcap (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Beware

WP:3RR. You are one revert away from breaching it at Order of Merit. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)