See the archives of my talk page here:

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

My bad on the Obama II edit. Birth certifcate > popular usage. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 12:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problemmo. I think that the practise of numbering descendants with the same name is more common in America than it is here - as is the practise of naming your descendants exactly the same as yourself - but as you say, that's what's on his birth certificate, and if he hasn't changed it since then, then that's his legal name. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So is Jenna, in her best scenes. Regardless, some of our best ideas are inspired by the morning light. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to erase the history....? Just a suggestion.--Pmedema (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. I've done that now. - Richard Cavell (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing. Your improvement to my point of clarification looks great. Hopefully this will improve people's access to agricultural terminology (or is that agrocultural terminology?) Morganfitzp (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you closed the debate on these and the result was to keep all of the pages separate as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Warped_Tour_2004_(2nd_nomination)

I would like to know why a user just took it upon himself to merge them all if the result of this debate was to keep them all? Upon 2nd look, 2007 and 2008 were merged but the others weren't. It still seems to be an inproper move. DX927 (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, thanks for the message. I'm having a lot of trouble checking what he's done, because my browser and computer (Firefox/2nd generation MacBook) can't churn through the diffs - they are thousands of lines long with heaps of formatting and images. I might have to send this to the admin noticeboards or RfC for the technical problems I'm having. I left him a message. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, sorry. The only reason I merged 07 & 08 but not the others is simply a matter of me not having time to merge the others. It takes some time to get it all sorted and alphabetized, and I just didn't have the time to do the other ones, but I'm going to try to get around to it soon enough. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 06:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why he's getting around to this is beyond me when it was already stated that all of the articles were going to be kept separate because no consensus was reached. Sorry that you're having issues checking up on it. Is there someone else I should take this matter to? DX927 (talk) 07:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken it to the Administrator's Noticeboards, and I suggest we wait for that. I imagine that someone running Internet Explorer would have a better time of it. I've also put in a report to Mozilla over Firefox's inability to handle the large tables. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that, I'm using Firefox 3 on a macbook and it's working just fine for me. But to be clear, "no consensus" doesn't mean "keep". Likewise, I didn't even delete the articles. I was bold and I merged them. Also, like I already pointed out, the list isn't any longer than something like List of Playstation 2 games. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 15:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I'm having technical problems, but they're entirely reproducible and I can't fix them. I appreciate what you're saying, but I still say that you acted without consensus. - Richard Cavell (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, seems like nothing has been changed back yet. DX927 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, I appreciate what you're saying, but I'm completely incapable of looking into it. I literally can't look at the diffs, so I can't investigate what he's done. Someone else on the Administrator's noticeboard says that he has the same problem with Firefox. - Richard Cavell (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was able to change everything back. I had to search "Warped Tour 2007" have it redirect me, click on the redirect link, then find the last edit before the move and copy/paste everything back while removing the redirect. Warped Tour 2007 and Warped Tour 2008 should be back to their normal page now. DX927 (talk) 06:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I think that's best. The Administrators' Noticeboard wasn't very helpful... - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you closed the AFD as no consensus, but I didn't delete the article. I redirected it to a more comprehensive and usable list. Likewise, a LOT of the bands featured on the other articles weren't actually on the tour, since I cross-referenced those lists with the official Warped Tour lists and a good deal weren't actually present. I merged all of the bands that were on the tour with the article. Also, I don't think that length is too much of an issue, as it isn't much worse than an article like List of PlayStation 2 games, which is just as functional but much longer than this article. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. Maybe a little more time was in order though. Wikisaver62 (talk) 09:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood me. I meant that the IP should be blocked for far more than 48 hours, otherwise he/she will just wait two days then start again. Wikisaver62 (talk) 10:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well i'll watch it for the next few days to see if anything happens once the block is removed. Wikisaver62 (talk) 10:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey about your edit at Shane Crawford, the foxsports article clearly states in the intro: "just hours after re-signing for another year." To me that says he re-signed, then changed his mind. So i'm not sure what to put, just a thought. Thanks. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 02:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The body of the text goes into more detail. A direct quote from Crawford himself says that he never actually signed it. He indicated to the club that he was going to sign, and on Friday someone from the club spoke about that event to the media, but from what he's saying, the pen never actually touched the contract. If we're going to use reliable sources and all that, I'd go with a direct quote from Crawford as definitive. I'm sure the journalist used a recording device; they always do. Also, Crawford's version of events is consistent and sounds way more plausible. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sounds good to me. We'll leave it as is then. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 05:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the very quick response you gave me about archiving a talk page.

Topology Expert (talk) 09:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining why I couldn't swap Wikipedia article names in the same way as swapping variables in a computer program, as I tried to do with Trop Rock and Tropical rock. I thought that the punctuation might have been the problem in my first attempt to create a temporary article name, so I tried again with an alternate spelling. That still didn't work, so I punted and asked for help at Wikipedia:Requested moves. That left the two temporary articles as artifacts. Thank you for deciphering what I tried to do and for deleting the artifacts. - Ac44ck (talk) 09:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'm a computer programmer too, and I saw straight away what you were thinking. :D - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I see you reverted my blanking of a mistaken AFD [1] on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Meon. After some further inspectikon, I realised there was no need for this AFD, as Colin Meon is a verbatim copy of CLSM. Therefore, I've tagged "Colin Meon" for speedy deletion as vandalism, whilst the article "CLSM" seems like a genuine biography, and I see no need to send it to AFD. I could simply withdraw as nom, however this AFD was a mistake from its incipience. Why the revert? --Flewis^(talk) 08:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, it was still transcluded on today's AfD page, so it looked very strange indeed. I realise that you thought that you had screwed up somewhere, but I figured the best way was to transclude the page you had originally created.

I don't understand why you want one deleted and not the other. They both have the same content. I've removed the nomination from the page for now, just while we figure out what you're trying to do. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll reinstate the AFD --Flewis^(talk) 09:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. That's what you want, isn't it? For both articles to be nominated together? It would make the most sense. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC

Yes - there was originally a slight mix-up, and I was a little confused with the duplicate article. Everything now should be order. Thanks for the help, --Flewis^(talk) 09:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Richardcavell. You have new messages at Flewis's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please reconsider resigning[2] your adminship. There was no reason for you to resign as an admin. The bureaucrat in question, Nichalp, overreacted and overreached here. Your RfA vote was not particularly unreasonable and in any event it was certainly not a good reason for Wikipedia to lose a good and experienced admin. Nsk92 (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I concur with the 'crat action on the RfA, I don't think resignation is in order. The comment Nic made was on the content of the oppose, not on the contributor.  Frank  |  talk  14:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Frank. The 'crats have been discussing ways to make the RfA process a bit less daunting in light of the declining numbers of promotions. I think Nichalp simply was signaling that he would not give an oppose for the reason you specified any weight; I am confident that it was not intended to signal any lack of trust, and I have seen nothing that indicates the community feels any differently. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree with the others here that this is certainly not enough reason to lose a good admin. Please reconsider. While I also disagree with your comments on the RfA, a single mistake (even if it were 100% agreed to be one) does not mean anyone has lost the trust of the community in general. We all make mistakes and this one's not that grand in the scheme of things. As mentioned I don't think striking the comment was in order, but also consider he didn't mean it to be offensive, he was just trying to implement the community feeling that bcrats should be more involved in RfAs as they are ongoing. - Taxman ^Talk 15:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I undid Nichalp's striking of your !vote and posted my reasoning in the RfA and on the BN noticeboard. I think it is poor precident to set and not appropriate. We've only stricken votes in the case of duplicates, IPs, and people obviously making point/disruption, NEVER for a good faith !vote.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also implore you not to resign the bit. As it happens your request on meta was rejected as you were not logged in. Hopefully, now you have had some time away from WP when you next log back in you will review the conversations being held around this and reconsider. Your value to WP as an admin has never been questioned, even if you felt it was being. We really can't afford to loose quality admins like you. Pedro :  Chat  16:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed... and Pedro, read your own comments above... I didn't like your talk last week about resigning either ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to join others above in asking you to reconsider your resignation. I personally think the rationale for your opposition was a valid one and that in any event publicly striking the vote was rather a Draconian action when Nichalp could simply have asked you to clarify. Whilst Nichalp may have felt the basis of your opposition was hard to discern, I doubt he was calling into question your ability to be an administrator and would be quite shocked to hear that you had decided to resign over the incident. As you will see from his userpage, he is currently away due to ill health and I am unsure when he will be able to respond. I am sorry you feel your standing on the project has been called into question by his action and I understand your unhappiness over the matter but it seems that it would be to the project's detriment were you to resign. WJBscribe (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also dropping in here and requesting you reconsider your resignation. I can see why you are upset over this, but it was not a challenge of your ability to be an admin and I am concerned you might do something you will regret later. The choice is ultimately yours, but I think the project will benefit from you staying as an admin. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I echo the above. As I said in my comment on the bureacrats' noticeboard, I'm sorry if Nichalp's actions offended you. Either way, his actions have no bearing on your suitability to be an admin. There was no need to resign over this, at all. --Deskana (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nichalp is the one who ought to be resigning, not you. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go that far... but I would be lying if I didn't get the sense of "crat's circling the wagons" in his defense... kind of like what happens when an admin is called out on WP:AN.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, everyone. Thanks for your support. I think that it's best that I resign. I will continue to edit wikipedia. I confirm to Cometstyles on Meta that I placed the request from IP 210.50.83.248 - I did not realise that I was no longer logged in when I placed the request. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is really too bad, and I still hope that you change your mind. There is really no reason for anyone to resign over this incident. Nsk92 (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]