User talk:Nitramrekcap

Talkback

Hello, Nitramrekcap. You have new messages at Kirachinmoku's talk page.
Message added 13:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

KiraChinmoku _{(T, ¤)} 13:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Rosalindfranklinsjokecard.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Rosalindfranklinsjokecard.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the proposed deletion of the "Rosalind Franklin Joke Card" your idea of a joke? It is an essential part of the article and it appears in Brenda Maddox's biography and Maurice Wilkins' autobiography. Having spoken to Professor Raymond Gosling in the past, I do feel sure he would have no objection to it appearing in the article; unfortunately it is not possible to gauge the opinions of Franklin and Wilkins, as they are both dead. To remove this image is totally illogical as it is an integral part of the story of the Double Helix. Please comment asap. MP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.187.190 (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Apostles / Bloomsbury Group dispute resolution

Hi Martin,

Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:List of Bloomsbury Group people#The Bloomsbury Group

No thanks!

195.194.238.104 (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP's

Hi Martin,

Here are some of the IP's you've been using:

2.24.4.34 (talk · contribs)
2.24.4.49 (talk · contribs)
2.24.32.43 (talk · contribs)
2.24.32.69 (talk · contribs)
2.24.34.114 (talk · contribs)
2.27.112.141 (talk · contribs)
2.27.112.236 (talk · contribs)
2.27.113.69 (talk · contribs)
2.27.113.103 (talk · contribs)
2.27.113.156 (talk · contribs)
2.27.130.233 (talk · contribs)
2.27.131.74 (talk · contribs) <-- blocked 22 August 2014 [1]
2.27.132.2 (talk · contribs)
2.27.132.8 (talk · contribs)
2.27.132.34 (talk · contribs)
2.27.132.142 (talk · contribs)
2.27.132.160 (talk · contribs)
2.27.146.76 (talk · contribs)
2.27.146.118 (talk · contribs)
2.30.187.133 (talk · contribs)
2.30.187.190 (talk · contribs)
2.30.187.211 (talk · contribs)
2.30.187.230 (talk · contribs)
2.30.188.106 (talk · contribs)
2.30.188.237 (talk · contribs)
2.30.189.40 (talk · contribs)
2.30.189.181 (talk · contribs)
2.30.190.22 (talk · contribs)
2.30.190.101 (talk · contribs)
2.30.190.119 (talk · contribs)
2.30.195.243 (talk · contribs)
2.30.195.254 (talk · contribs)
2.30.198.91 (talk · contribs)
2.30.207.146 (talk · contribs) <-- blocked 25 August 2014 [2]
2.30.208.18 (talk · contribs)
2.30.208.46 (talk · contribs)
2.30.208.71 (talk · contribs)
2.30.208.93 (talk · contribs)
195.194.238.103 (talk · contribs)
195.194.238.104 (talk · contribs)

I hope you don't mind me mentioning these.

Just a question, do you have a connection to these:

(who apparently used some of the IP's above)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I AM NOT DIGNIFYING THE ABOVE STUPID QUESTION WITH A REPLY AS SUCH, OTHER THAN TO SAY IT DOES CONFIRM MY PREVIOUSLY STATED OPINION. (U.K. WIKIPEDIA SHOULD BE FOR U.K. RESIDENTS?) 2.30.195.254 (talk) 08:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck first question - what about the second question?

updated list

Re. "PREVIOUSLY STATED..." — where did you state that opinion before?

Please avoid ALLCAPS --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updated list again, now regarding recent edits in Pre-Raphaelite content area --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

commented out geolocation of the list of IP's (easy enough to check) + added a new abusive IP to the list. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updated IP list with latest emanation [3]. @Callanecc: alas this isn't over yet, as you so optimistically surmised [4]. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and again [5] --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic List of Bloomsbury Group people. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)[reply]

Received; I will think about it! (Incidentally I am an experienced Wiki contributor, who prefers Wikipedia to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography: seen John Naughton's article in "The Observer" 10.8.14)? Unfortunately dictatorial editors of Belgian/Canadian/Dutch extraction are wasting their own time arguing with me about Bloomsbury Group, Order of Merit, and the Cambridge Apostles. I DO enjoy comparing Wikipedia and ODNB in favour of the former! 2.30.198.91 (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

I hereby inform you that you are mentioned in a discussion at AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Enough_is_enough. The Banner talk 20:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked this account indefinitely for longterm disruption and edit warring, under this account and dozens of IP addresses. This means also that those IP edits can be summarily reverted since they count as block evasion. That's a shame: you could have contributed, but you should have done so according to our guidelines. Now you cannot contribute at all--not until you agree to abide by our guidelines. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and dozens of IP addresses

AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED BY WIKIPEDIA!

"goodbye Wikipedia, and thank you for the fish"; 'Wikipedia is a LUNATIC ASYLUM' = discuss Jimbo! 2.27.132.34 (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're generated by you and your internet provider. Also blocked, 2.27.132.164. No point in blocking: 2.30.207.149. Bye bye til the next time. Drmies (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is user:Nitramrekcap. Thank you. - Paul B (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]