See the archives of my talk page here:

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4
• Archive 5

You'll have to be more specific about what I supposedly deleted that you'd want me to re-add. I mostly just moved content to more appropriate spots and improved the titles of sections. Pretty much the only content I deleted were some paragraphs that were directly copy and pasted from the novel, which is not what Wikipedia is for.Spylab (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a section about comedy, and another section about gag characters. The novel is partly known for being a comedy novel, so I think that the comedy ought to be analysed. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 61/52/7; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Wizardman and Malinaccier for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for the trust the community has placed in me. A special Christmas song for you all can be found at the right hand side of this message! Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Dendodge TalkContribs, 17:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of doing that, but decided that they DID know what they were doing. I was disallowed a db-spam on their article because it wasn't spammy enough. Borderline in my mind. Worth a try, anyway... Peridon (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, my very best wishes for the festive season stay safe and talk to you in 2009.--VS ^talk 11:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Richard, First of all A Very Merry Christmas to you. Hope u r in good state of health. I wnat to know from u that is there any way to minimise the effect of the force induced at the time of generation of current? Please let me know at ur convinience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayne jefferson (talk • contribs) 16:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Rayne. It's an application of Newton's third law. You simply can't do what you're trying to do. You won't get more power out of the induced current than you did out of the original one. You'd be breaking the laws of thermodynamics, which have existed for a long time. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up the article. Schuym1 (talk) 04:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Now how about creating one on the genus Ewartia? - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created it a few minutes ago. Schuym1 (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism - I'd like to invite you to add the Terrorism deletion watchlist to your watched articles, as it will allow you to be updated whenever a related article is proposed for deletion. In total, 40% of articles sent/added to Wikiproject Terrorism have requests for cleanup outstanding, whether better sourcing, orphaned or in need of images...please feel free to see the entire list. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 14:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I try to keep my watchlist under 500, so I'll pass. I know you guys are doing a good job. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares? This is just confusion, delete it per db-g7 or g11, g3, g1 and evreyone is happy. Ok, not evreyone, not the author. The Rolling Camel (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Just wondering as you have the account creator flag would you like to help out on the Account Creating Tool? If you already have an account then please tell me as your on wiki user name may be set incorrectly. The reason you received this message is because your name is listed here. Please get back to me on my talk page. -·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 17:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation. I might just let it go for now. I am busy with other things. - Richard Cavell (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Are you an administrator or can you help? I saw you previously had posted on this page when it was nominated for a second deletion. The result was to keep and it was closed. Now someone has nominated it yet a third time to get it deleted and off of Wikipedia. Any chance of you being able to help in this matter or know what to do? The article is well sourced and has plenty of references and was not written by Clary himself as Lee C. Ellison alleges. One only has to enter the name of Johnny Lee Clary in any search engine and plenty of sources attests to him as a well known public figure. Most recent news articles have him on the front pages of newspapers all over the world, including New Zealand, Australia and India. In addition there are many news articles written on him in the United States. Just because Lee C. Ellison has never heard of Johnny Angel does not mean no one else has. He never bothered to check his sources on Johnny Angel or Johnny Lee Clary. www.onlineworldofwrestling carries his bio as well as other wrestling websites. I thought this article should be sent to an administrator and a protest be filed that it was improperly re-nominated for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia standards. I have yet to hear back from one administrator but another one wrote me back and said resolve the matter among yourselves. Can you please help? Thanks. ReaganRebel {talk} 14:30, 2 February 2009 {UTC}

I've replied on your talk page. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richardcavell, it's now been over half a year since my previous request for the mop, and reviewing that RfA reveals that you were one of my opposers last time round. I was wondering if you'd like to comment on my current status in the Wikipedia community, and if you believe I would be ready to run for adminship again in future? Please respond wherever you feel it is most appropriate. Kind regards. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cyclonenim. I've been busy in real life so I haven't had a chance to look through RfA in a while. I suspect that if you ran for RfA again, I'd support you and that you would pass. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you offer your thoughts on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiology task force is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Cardiology on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of participants at Cardiology task force Participants. ECG Unit (Welcome!)

-- ~~~~

T.F.AlHammouri (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading your post in the discussion of Gentry Lee and I agree wholeheartedly with your opinions. He nearly ruined the RAMA series for me. :'( SASstuJlinc (talk) 07:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting me in my recent RfA, which unfortunately did not pass with a final tally of (45/39/9). I plan on addressing the concerns raised and working to improve in the next several months. Special thanks go to MBisanz, GT5162, and MC10 for nominating me. Thanks again, -download ׀ sign! 03:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Peter James Knight has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Only claim to notability is the fact that this person committed a murder, which is (unfortunately) all too common. The only references are primary sources (court documents). Knight does not meet WP:N.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Crusio (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lee Torney has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Only claim to notability is the fact that this person committed a murder, which is (unfortunately) all too common. The only reference is a blog. Hence, Torney does not meet WP:N.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Crusio (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Tabulology for speedy deletion as a blatant and obvious hoax (criterion G3) - the article has no sources and the only reference to this word appears to be from the satirical book, Peter Principle. ∙ AJCham^talk 01:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Elevator episode has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Can't find any sources, WP:original research better suited for tvtropes.org.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Prezbo (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sending it to AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elevator episode Richard Cavell (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Insufflation This is the medical usage of insufflation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insufflation_%28medicine%29 From an etymology point of view I agree that the word is confusing 'in' like ingest and 'sufflation' like blowing ... but I didn't make it up, it's just a standard word for snorting =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesolimbo (talk • contribs) 18:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the use of the word. All the online dictionaries don't use the word this way. I'm a doctor and I've never heard the word used this way before. I'm putting citation-needed on the insufflation article. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off - hello, and Thank you very much for approaching me in such a polite manner at my talk page, most appreciated! I do not think that articles on Wikipedia should have unsourced info. And especially not WP:BLP articles. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for your votes on the AfDs. I agree with your take that we need expert attention on this matter. Any idea how I can get experts related to the topic on Wikipedia to look into the matter?

I was basically reviewing the articles created by Striver after seeing that quite a few of his articles have got deleted due to notability issues. Many of the articles he made are about obviously notable subjects. But quite a few make no claim of notability for the subject. I myself am unsure how to proceed. Could you please advise me in this regard? If you can come up with a good suggestion about evaluating notability of these subjects, I can withdraw my deletion request.

Thank you very much -- Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 15:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm going to nudge some of the people at WP:Islam to help us. - Richard Cavell (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to ask for help at WP:ISLAM. But I was completely confused about what to do. Reviewing a user's contribs looks very much like assuming bad faith. I did not want to ask for something like that so publicly. Thanks and best wishes -- Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 15:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's no problem. I'm emailing and sending talk messages to various people who appear to be active and knowledgeable about Islam so that we can get to the bottom of this. - Richard Cavell (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the discussions to the list of Islam related discussions. Perhaps that will help. Best wishes -- Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 15:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Richardcavell! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 17 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 900 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Geoff Cox - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Linda Dessau - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Alex McCracken - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
4. Peter Faiman - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
5. Julian Gardner (Australian) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
6. Fiona Coote - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
7. Harold Luntz - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
8. Brian Nankervis - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
9. Josie Parrelli - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
10. Kelly Sumner - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably restore and then <del>...</del> your original neutral comment here, as another voter cited its rationale, which is now missing. :-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 10:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks. I wasn't sure how to handle that. I've restored it and struck it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Andy Muirhead, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Muirhead. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Mattinbgn\^talk 06:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{trout}}

What on earth were you thinking in starting an article like that? If you're going to start an article on a living person, make the effort to properly find sources to create a balanced view of them, not just picking the latest scandal. I've now done the work you should have done in the first place. Fences&Windows 23:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good on you for improving the article. I also presume the man to be innocent, and certainly don't presume that he is a paedophile. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think you did presume he was guilty. Fences&Windows 21:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Brendan McMahon

I have nominated Brendan McMahon, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan McMahon (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Dermatology

Any interest in dermatology? If so, we are always looking for more help at the Dermatology task force, particularly with the ongoing Bolognia push. I can e-mail you the login information if you like? There is still a lot of potential for many new articles and redirects. ---kilbad (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, mate. I can't claim any particular expertise in dermatology. So I shouldn't be writing articles. But I'll certainly add my two cents where I can, editing and correcting grammar and so on. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re

I thought you would know I was referencing the RfA talkpage- in hindsight, I should have made that clearer. The link is here:[1]. I guess the best idea would be to start with section 9, and to go down from there. It's way too much drama for my taste, but I figured I should at least back up my position on that issue. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've replied in the RfA. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Richardcavell. You have new messages at Malcolmxl5's talk page.
Message added 19:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

The Matty Johns Show

Hi. Please see User_talk:Jeff79#The_Matty_Johns_Show.--Jeff79 (talk) 04:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramon Estevez

SnottyWong is right that your AfD policy is incorrect at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramon Estevez. You should cite WP:GNG and WP:ENT and overstrike the notability is inherited lines.

I'm happy with my contribution to the AfD. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Kimber Seward

Hi! I'm honestly trying to get thru to that site but I'm not getting through. Do you know of a mirror site? I'm having fun researching this and truly enjoy receiving your input. I wonder, if you are still looking into it, could we share notes here (or on my Talk page)? So far I've found several modern books that identify our lawyer Frederic as a passenger, but nothing in a primary or secondary source: some of them make brief mentions of a "Seward", "F. Seward", or "Frederick Seward", but nothing connects them to that Frederic. And as you know, I just cannot believe that his Who's Who or Times obituary would fail to mention something like that! I'll elaborate if you want :) SteveStrummer (talk) 10:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm having no trouble accessing the site. Try Google cache here here here and here. I'm happy to share notes here. I reckon the US Senate Inquiry would have been exhaustive - I can't imagine a better source for us to use. I reckon it's the same guy. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't view them. Are they definitely all mirrors of the same page? What's the actual name of the document? I'm continuing to look for passenger lists, but the only halfway scholarly-looking one I can find is from a Nova Scotia museum, and it just lists "F. Seward" as a 1st-class passenger. I thought the Historical Titanic Society would be the last visit I need to make, but their passenger list is offline too-?! Can you bring it up? SteveStrummer (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, I'm not having any trouble accessing these sites. Maybe your browser is borked. If you email me your email address, I'll email you the pages offline. I'd like to stick with the Senate Inquiry pages. I would think that they would have exercised due diligence in their investigation, had power to compel evidence, etc, and they made their findings contemporaneously. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just emailed you now. Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveStrummer (talk • contribs) 13:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, thank you very much for all your encouraging interest in this research. I read the files you sent me and took note that they do indeed verify "Frederick K. Seward" as a 1st-class passenger (as well as a litigant in a suit against White Star). However, I still did not believe that necessarily made him the same man as "Frederic Kimber Seward", and I kept on looking. I can finally show something I believe settles the matter once and for all. Please see the new article: I've updated it to show that Frederic aka Frederick is indeed the same man. Why on earth his Times obituary didn't make note of it, I will never understand.... But conclusive proof is finally upon us and I guess we can consider the matter closed. I enjoyed this little mystery a lot! I hope you don't regret being involved. Again, many thanks to you for your help and interest. SteveStrummer (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing. You may notice that in one of the legal documents, he's referred to as Frederick (sic). I reckon that means that his real name is Frederic, without the K. Do you agree? - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. The April 12th article was probably hastily written, but the obituary, Who's Who, and the school document all have it as "Frederic". I withdrew the request to change the article because I felt embarassed, but if you're willing to do so, I think it's the right thing. SteveStrummer (talk) 00:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Don't be embarrassed. What matters is that you thought it through to the end. By the way, do you mind if I post this conversation on the talk page, for future reference? I'm going to request a move to Frederic. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's OK with me. SteveStrummer (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Matty Johns Show peer review

Hello, I've left some comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Matty Johns Show/archive1.--BelovedFreak 21:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Josiah Bartlet

Whoops... added an extra T, to get the wrong person. ^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 13:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Richardcavell. You have new messages at Belovedfreak's talk page.
Message added 10:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Photobombing listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Photobombing. Since you had some involvement with the Photobombing redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Lygo

"He needs more references." From where? There are all of four hits on Gnews, one of which is a false positive and three of which date from the time his record was set. I absolutely hate it when people clamor for more references but can't be arsed to prove whether or not any exist. Burden of proof and all that. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Source 1 is a fansite, source 2 is IMDb which can't be cited as it's mostly user submitted; source 3 is someone's personal website on some equivalent of Angelfire. None of those is reliable except the Find Articles one. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks spam

Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Your GA nomination of The Matty Johns Show

The article The Matty Johns Show you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Matty Johns Show for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Aaron north (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving web references

Hi, there's some great referencing on the Matty Johns Show article. I was wondering if you knew about webcitation.org, it's a good way of preventing the links in the article gradually becoming broken (through websites closing or moving pages). There was a bot on WP that used to do this for articles automatically but it has been having problems for ages. While it has been down, I've been doing it manually. If you are interested, you can quickly archive all the links present on the article by using http://webcitation.org/comb then add them to the article by using the archiveurl and archivedate fields of the ref template. LunarLander // talk // 15:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the heads-up. Most of the Australian news media have now adopted the practise of allowing their URLs to stay put permanently, because of the problem of links becoming broken, and they all want to be known as the news source of record. I wish that bot would be fixed. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfA reverse-thank-spam

Hi,
Thanks for your eloquent responses at the RfA, even in the face of repeated criticism. You took it a lot more graciously than many other folk might. I said "oppose" for similar reasons to others, but it's not a grudge - if you ever feel like running the gauntlet again, I'd happily support if your edits in the intervening time are more sourcey. But, hey, you seem to be making other good contributions to wikipedia with or without the mop. Thanks for being rigorously nice. :-)
bobrayner (talk) 10:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFA 2 has has been closed as unsuccessful. Please work on the concerns and try again. Thank you. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I would be willing to support at a future RfA should the issues that were a problem were to be addressed. I could see that you are a good contributor, and hope you will continue -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternate account of Phantomsteve]} 13:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of David Pleasance

The article David Pleasance has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

if Commodore UK doesn't merit an article, I doubt its former CEO does

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Scott Mac 23:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning. I don't object to the article's deletion. I'm a bit surprised that Commodore UK is not considered notable - there were whole magazines devoted to its products that regularly reported on Commodore UK's activities, so notability should really not be contested at all. I think it's just pre-Internet bias. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Insult comedy for deletion

The article Insult comedy is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insult comedy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Bdb484 (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruiji = Japanese for "resemblance" - source found

Hi there. I just wanted to alert you to my response at Talk:Luigi#Ruiji_.3D_Japanese_for_.22resemblance.22 with a source for the name. I haven't put it into the article as I'm not sure how to properly cite it, but you probably do, I'm guessing. :) Thanks for reading. --TheSophera (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

asking for robotic cooperation

Hi, I'm Reza. usually I work in fa.wiki I came across your message in robot request part. I developed a robot who can detect coordination template and convert it to coord template and gives me the article name with coordination number to upload it in fa.wiki i want to develop and change it to standard robot who can automatically detect last new articles coordination from other wikis like interwiki robot. If you are interested in this project please write in fa:بحث کاربر:Reza1615 Also i have a big problem with interwiki that i wrote in bot request I m appreciated if you help, yours,Reza1615 (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for you link but i couldn't download it. would please tell me what it will do ? I work with python. I read your bot is in C so how can i run it ?Reza1615 (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Richardcavell. You have new messages at WP:BON.
Message added 22:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I responded to your inquiry. Tim1357 ^talk 22:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of In Pit Lane

The article In Pit Lane has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Local cable show of limited notability. Little significant coverage from independent reliable sources - most search returns outside primary sources are Wiki mirrors and social media sites.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of No Limits (Australian TV series)

The article No Limits (Australian TV series) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Local cable show of limited notability. Little significant coverage from independent reliable sources - most search returns outside primary sources are Wiki mirrors and social media sites.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Police paddock

smells of eastern seaboard - never come across it for wa or tas historical materials - found some trove stuff - you might want to revisit the australia wide generalisations sometime - cheers SatuSuro 10:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]