Danke

This is probably the most inconsequential thank you'll ever lay your eyes on, but thanks for swining by my AfD on Dead city records. It's the first one I've done, and I feel more confident now that I know someone else is picking up what I'm throwing down. Consequentially 02:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a comment you made suggesting something similar to this proposal, so I thought I'd drop a link to it for you, so we could coordinate our (small) efforts at getting it implemented. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preying from the Pulpit you suggested that we delete the article Preying from the Pulpit. 8 out of 10 people who commented there agreed with you and said we should remove the article by deleting or merging its content with First Baptist Church of Hammond. Now the admin that removed the AfD has placed a merge tag on the article instead. Can you please comment on the proposed merger of the article at Talk:First Baptist Church of Hammond#Merging with Preying from the Pulpit? Vivaldi (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let you into a secret: I rarely look at the deletion log at all. When you get admin status on Wikipedia you can see the deleted edits of any article simply by pressing "History": they appear along with any of the current history of the given article. -- Francs2000 21:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mahogany

Hi Richard,

You seem (going only by what you've written) to have vote to keep this article because you believe that it is the subject of endless nominations. As I said at the start of my renomination, the previous vote was closed down because the original proposer withdrew his vote in what appears, if you look at the conversation, to be little more than a fit of pique, when the vote was leaning towards delete or merge. That's the only reason I re-nominated.

I'm asking you to reconsider your vote based on the merits of the article, and defend it as such: your current comments make it look like my nomination was prompted by background politics, which is untrue and unfair. Not trying to sway your vote incidentally, just don't want it to be on a false basis.

Cheers!

Vizjim 08:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, OK. Fairy nuff. Vizjim 10:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And then worst of all baby I don't know if you say you will.. i need pou, I don't know if you do know, I don't kno wif you were to start, why don't you build me up buttercup, just make me start, why don't you huild me up babyk dont you let me donw,k y09ou sely you woj't still and then owrst of all you say woul dont b aby when uyou say ou will ane I love you stiill Ineedyou and thin I own tif I wont love y9o the satart

I’ve added a discussion of abdomen (and I’ve quoted EEPD [Jones-Gimson] in its XIII edition [1967; reprint with corrections, 1974], because I’ve got only this: I don’t know whether the note is still there in the 1977 edition. It isn’t in the XV edition of Jones's dictionary [Roach-Hartman, 1997]. But I see that you’re a doctor: so, could you confirm that the members of your profession [in Australia] prefer the regular, or etymological, pronunciation?)

To add a note about cervical is certainly a good idea, too. Tom Hope

I’ve now added a note about cervical. Tom Hope

Thank you for supporting my RFA! Unfortunately it did not succeed mainly because most opposers wanted me to spend more time on Wikipedia. Thank you for your faith in me & looking forward to your continued support in the future.

Cheers

Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 00:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding to your request on Voice of All's talk page for an edit summary. I'm not sure what he uses to give them, but I can give you one, it's using Interiot's tool.

Username Richardcavell
Total edits 2570
Distinct pages edited 1740
Average edits/page 1.477
First edit 02:07, 30 July 2005

(main) 1654
Talk 132
User 25
User talk 163
MediaWiki talk 1
Template 2
Wikipedia 570
Wikipedia talk 23
Hope this helps --pevarnj ^(t/c/@) 00:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit data posted below, for all edits.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 01:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User contributions
--Viewing contribution data for user Richardcavell (over the 2577 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 262 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 1hr (UTC) -- 18, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 2hr (UTC) -- 30, July, 2005
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 78.63% Minor edits: 90.89%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 54.41% Minor article edits: 90.75%
Average edits per day (current): 9.84
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/major sourcing): 6.67% (172)
Unique pages edited: 1650 | Average edits per page: 1.56 | Edits on top: 14.09%
Breakdown of edits:
All significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 37.29%
Minor edits (non reverts): 44.94%
Marked reverts: 6.05%
Unmarked edits: 11.72%
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 64.3% (1657) | Article talk: 5.12% (132)
User: 0.97% (25) | User talk: 6.33% (163)
Wikipedia: 22.27% (574) | Wikipedia talk: 0.89% (23)
Image: 0% (0)
Template: 0.08% (2)
Category: 0% (0)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.04% (1)

The adherent of this testing has been turning the entry into an advert, imho, for the wonders of the BDORT. If you're interested, any input would be appreciated. Fucyfre 13:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Richard! Thank you very much for your support of my request for adminship. I look forward to continuing to run into you on the project. Thanks again, and if you ever see something that you feel I could be doing better, feel free to leave me a message. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly... two species, hence "both" is more correct than "all". - UtherSRG (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the Bwindi is a proposed subspecies, so it would be two species even if it is accepted as a supspecies. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's almost 14! Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user that you are asking if I am related to appears to be a vandal. I assure you that I am not this person and have no intention to ever vandalize. Ding Dong 13:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard. I've added my hand to the two articles you suggest I look at. I'm quite surprised Mr May didn't have an article before now. He was an entertaining watch at times. -- Longhair 04:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I remember May from The Mike Walsh Show, which probably makes me even older :( -- Longhair 04:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work mate, the article is starting to fill out nicely. Will try and expand it further when I get some spare time. Rogerthat ^Talk 09:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the article, Austen himself has had a look at the article and found a few comments he finds "condescending and puerile" (see User talk:Alex gutman). Perhaps we can reach an understanding on the article. Rogerthat ^Talk 07:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have tons of good edits. Have you thought of running for adminship? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 21:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hugh.

When I first started participating on RfA, there was a severe case of editcountitis among the participants. I think that RfA still has a few major problems. I'm trying to be part of the solution! Not one of the guinea pigs...

Having said that, I can't get away from the fact that the tools would be awfully useful. If someone nominates me, I'll accept the nomination. I don't want to be nominated for any reason other than because I'd make good use of the tools. - Richardcavell 22:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your reply here to keep the conversation together. Anyway, here we go:

You could add {{User wikipedia/Administrator Nominee}} to your userpage. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 14:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nomination, which humours me enormously. I've accepted and replied to the questions. If it is to your liking, I invite you to add it to RfA. - Richardcavell 23:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In conjunction with my RfA (that you voted on), I have created an editor review, to give people a chance to comment as to ways in which I can branch out or alter my contributions to Wikipedia. An RfA seems to solely focus on how one's temperment and contributions relate to how they might handle administrative powers (and the consensus on that seems to be that I'm not quite ready); the editor review opens things up a little more to a larger focus, and I'd love to hear community feedback in the sense of that larger focus, too. If you feel you've already expressed yourself sufficiently when casting your vote, then by all means don't worry about it, but if any thoughts come to mind or if you'd like to expound upon any suggestions or commentary, it would be appreciated. In any case, I appreciated you taking the time to express your opinion on my RfA, and I thank you for that. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 19:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the accidental deletion of this page. I restored it seconds afterwards. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  23:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You placed an opinion at RFD under an entry that had already been closed (New York City infobox). Based upon the opinion & the fact that it wasn't in the correct place within the entry you did vote on, I think you actually meant to place it at the entry above that one (Tetraethylborane). I have moved it to that entry. If this was incorrect, please delete the opinion and remember that you should not modify a closed entry & that you should always add your opinion at the end. If it was correct, what happened was that a closure header will show up at the bottom of the previous entry (if the next entry is closed). You need to place your opinion before the closure header. If this didn't make sense, please let me know! Thanks. -- JLaTondre 11:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to drop a brief note on your talk page (one admittedly not written to you only, but nevertheless truly meant) to thank you for your vote in my Request for Adminship, which concluded this evening. Even though it was unsuccessful, it did make clear to me some areas in which I can improve my contributions to Wikipedia, both in terms of the areas in which I can participate and the manner in which I can participate. I do plan on, at some point in the future (although, I think, not the near future), attempting the process again, and I hope you will consider participating in that voting process as well. If you wish in the future to offer any constructive criticism to me, or if I may assist you with anything, I hope you will not hesitate to contact me. Thanks again. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Richard,

I won't be "voting" on your RfA. Your answers to the questions were, mostly, quite impressive, and from seeing you work in the past I think you'll make a good admin, so I don't intend to oppose.

However, I'm worried by your intention to go with the majority when closing AfDs, even if it leads to an obvious absurdity (a good article being deletd because most users failed to revise their views after evidence was posted by an expert). We read the AfD with consensus in mind, certainly, but a) the number of votes doesn't matter (I make a point of never knowing what the tally looks like), and b) a single "keep, obviously notable, he won the Nobel Prize!" trumps even twenty "nn d"s.

In any case, your RfA looks like a shoo-in, and well deserved, too. Thank you for answering my questions, and I look forward to working with you. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 05:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't actually looked at deletion policy/guide to deletion/etc. in more than six months :-). There are words along those lines at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus, which says that if someone comes up with information that proves others' comments irrelevant (e.g. a copyvio article can't be kept, so the keep side is disregarded; another example is a bunch of people saying "unverifiable" and someone proves it is verifiable)). But the answer more relevant to my view is, well, it's the way we've done it for more than half a year now at least, uncontroversially and endorsed by WP:DRV. If there's nothing in policy to back that view up, then policy is out of date ... fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 05:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're now an admin after an impressive showing of community support. I recommend being conservative with the new tools, especially at first, and re-reading the relevant policy before acting. Use the administrator's noticeboard for anything potentially controversial, and monitor Administrator intervention against vandalism for problems. Thanks, and have fun with your new tools. - Taxman ^Talk 18:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and congratulations from me, too. I made a small edit to your userpage - I hope you don't mind. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 20:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from me too. Honoured to be the first in the list!Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With a few more articles of this ilk, I see a nice fit for a new category, Category:Comedy by genre. Good work. -- Longhair 04:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Dr. Cavell. I would like to thank you for updating Conjoint tendon to its current name. Since you referenced Nomina anatomica in your comment, it seemed like you might be a useful resource for an issue with which I've been struggling. The best on-line source I've found so far for TA/NA is Dorlands, but in a few cases (including this one) Dorlands provides two TA names without indicating which is preferred. Do you know of another source (preferably on-line) that helps resolve these cases? --Arcadian 14:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to its deletion, would I be stepping on any toes to create a redirect to Spaceballs? That might prevent it from being recreated, and there's already a Spaceballs 3 article (that, until I edited it otherwise, linked to Spaceballs 2). EVula 14:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also, would it be possible for me to get the external links that were on that page? One of them might be useful in providing a needed citation for Spaceballs#Sequels. EVula 14:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! EVula 23:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have to stop meeting this way! :) Mak (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Pilot|guy 22:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to proceed here. Matthvm is now going through my old talk page material and leaving scathing remarks, veiled threats and borderline personal attacks. Is it appropriate for me to revert his comments saying "rv - Removed comments by Matthvm posted in bad faith." or "rv - Removed attacks by Matthvm"? I don't want to cross the line, but I'd prefer if his aggression against me didn't spill over onto my talk page in every topic. Kershner 22:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for quickly blocking User:71.133.40.52 for vandalism. —ERcheck (talk) @ 02:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch the article "amygdala". FranklinT 01:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]