User talk:Rnickel

Bennie Edens

To give you a reply on the high school coach, if you think he's notable, you are free to make the article yourself, as you put a lot of information into the requested articles section. Really, you could've just went ahead and did that, it didn't really need to go in the Req. articles. Wizardman 21:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stepford

One, because the plot holes -weren't- cited and tagged. Secondly, IIRC, there was speculation and questioning and pondering over various bits of the movie. That's called 'original research'. Hypothetical example: saying 'Joe blew up the store' as part of a plot summary is okay because it's in the movie. Even if the movie doesn't explain the explosion, going on about how 'blowing up the store makes no sense' is usually original research and against the rules. Saying, in the plot section, 'there is no explanation for the explosion' is okay. Lots42 (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Dancers

Heya. First off, just a note, The prod process is only used on articles, not categories or redirects. Use CFD for categories, or RFD for redirects (normally, this would go to RFD). Second, if you ever make a mistake and want it deleted, and you're the only contributor, you can request that the page be speedily deleted under G7 criteria...simply put {{db-author}} on the page. I've tagged the category this way. Just so you know. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Popcorn

Hello

You're quite right — I shouldn't have marked my edit to popcorn as minor. Your subsequent change looks good to me. The implication in the version that I edited was that calories and fat are undesirable ingredients in food. This might be true for some of us (I'm relatively rich and overfed myself), but there are plenty of people for whom this is not the case.

Ferdinand Pienaar (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSPI Criticism

Replied at my Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at CSPI Discussion page. BTW, thanks for your efforts. Lapabc (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan White (UA quarterback) back on Daniel White dab page

Looks good to me. --Tesscass (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Norville

LOL that you found that particular query from me and answered it! That must have given you a lot of satisfaction.

So I guess you can see what I have been up to lately: researching the older "unsourced biographies of living persons" for possible rescue (or the occasional Propose for Deletion). Rumor has it that those unsourced BLPs could be deleted wholesale in the near future, so I am looking for ones that deserve saving. To my surprise, some of them are truly famous people like Deborah Norville and Harry Anderson. Others are not in that league but still deserving of an article here, so I am adding notches to my belt. --MelanieN (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Holly Cruikshank

I have nominated Holly Cruikshank, 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/Holly Cruikshank. 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 - talk 02:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the notification. I will post my response on the AfD page soon. All the best. Bobo. 17:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ventura Freeway discussion you might want to get in on

Howdy! You might want to be aware of/or take part in the discussion at Talk:California State Route 134. It's about whether to eliminate the article about the Ventura Freeway by merging it into the two numbered highways (U.S. 101 and state route 34) that make it up.

Here's the background: The members of Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads seem to have it as one of their rules that anything related to a numbered route has to be merged into the article about the numbered route. On March 27 one of them reduced the Ventura Freeway article (14,000 bytes) to a disambiguation page referencing highways 101 and 34, with the editorial comment "article not needed". Someone else reverted that change, saying "Notable topic. You need to gain consensus for such a major more." The original editor then AfD'ed the page, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ventura Freeway. That generated lively discussion, but when it appeared the consensus was moving toward "keep" the nominator withdrew the nomination, giving as the reason "This is something that needs to be discussed across the board; I don't think this is the place to do it though." Now someone has re-started the discussion on the talk page of the State Route 134 article and they are all talking about a delete-and-merge again. I know I'm supposed to assume good faith but I find it hard in this case; I feel like they moved the discussion to an obscure talk page precisely so they could make a decision among themselves without wide input from the Wikipedia community.

I happen to feel that freeways which are best known by their name, like the Ventura, should have their own articles under the name. And IMO the fact that a lot of the information thus appears in two places is not a "vexing problem" as one of them called it.

Anyhow, your input on this question is welcome, whatever your view on the subject. --MelanieN (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, the subject seems to be resolving itself.

RE: Glover

Mainly it was a few sections which I didn't have time to fix at the time- I'm going through right now and fixing the sections and removing the tag after it. RF23 (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert O. Peterson

This is to notify you that the article Robert O. Peterson which you created has been nominated for use as a "Did you know...?" item on the Wikipedia main page. You can view the nomination here under "articles created on April 26." It has been approved for use and will eventually go into the queue and then on to the main page. --MelanieN (talk) 04:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Wow, wish I'd known about this earlier... I've done major expansions this year of both Holly Cruikshank and Suncrest, Washington that had good "hook" facts... could've nominated those too! —Rnickel (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This can be a fun thing. And you can nominate your own article, it doesn't have to be nominated by someone else. Once it goes into the queue you have to keep a sharp eye on the main page because the "Did you know...?" items are changed frequently - I believe three times a day. I have had several items there that I never saw, because they went on the page during the middle of the night per my local time! Another fun thing is to check the "page view" statistics afterward - you may find that hundreds of people clicked on the link and viewed your article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI the Holly Cruikshank and Suncrest articles might not have qualified - it has to be a five-fold expansion (and yes, they do check the byte count), all done during the five days immediately preceding the nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, well, you're right, the Holly Cruikshank expansion only went from ~2500 to ~7500... over 4000 bytes short. The Suncrest one would've qualified though, with 100 bytes to spare! —Rnickel (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Robert O. Peterson

Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Robert Krentz

Materialscientist (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PLease review my response to your insightful comments about The Arena MMA page

I have included a detailed reponse to your comments (and thank you for taking the time to provide such a thorough explanation. I hope you might find my comments food for thought at least. The page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Arena_(MMA) ThanksMmasource (talk) 07:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I understand your points and you are right, it is frustrating. I am not trying to be inflammatory with phrases like "witch hunt" (I thought that was a WP term that could be applied to a case like this) and I never accused newspapers of corruption. I just simply mentioned a reality of how media works today. The fact that you got paid for articles as a freelance writer doesn't change that reality. I worked in PR for years and I have placed countless stories in numerous publications. However, that is not my goal for The Arena as I am simply a local based fan, have a real job, and am not getting paid for my contributions. Its just that I try to be logical in my analysis of things and certain aspects of the arguments presented against The Arena Article did not seem logical, even given the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument.

But since I am a fan and one I consider extremely knowledgable of the sport as a former competitor myself, as well as media professional, I am quite sure The Arena is "ready for primetime" given what I know of all the other teams in the sport and where they all stand today. However, I will make sure The Arena Article I created references secondary sources that discuss The Arena itself. I don't see any other way of doing it now but to follow "The Wikipedia Way" :) Thanks Rnickel, you have been a great help. Mmasource (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Inviting Discussion to AfD

Sorry to take up your time with all this discussion. I know you have better things to do and hopefully this is my last question for you for a while. I am curious how to invite others into The Arena's AfD discussion. Obviously the editors currently involved in this discussion must have been made aware by someone else that there was a discussion, given their rapid response once I initiated conversation about it with Rjanag.

Without being accused of canvassing, am I allowed to invite the contributors of the other mixed martial arts training facilities into this discussion, as well as other contributors to MMA articles? It would seem they might have some viewpoints of their own that might have some value, rather than whatever value my lone viewpoint offers. If so, do I simply make them aware of the discussion by contacting them on their tps and invite them to take part? Thanks. Mmasource (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, happy to help. First, you can post something at WP:RFC. Second, yes, you can invite others to the discussion by posting on their talk pages, but you have to be very careful about it. I would take a good, thorough look at WP:CANVASS (look especially at "votestacking") and WP:AFDEQ first. Also notice that the AfD was already included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions, so presumably folks knowledgable about the subject area should already have noticed it there and chimed in if they had an opinion. If you're going to try inviting others to the discussion, at the very minimum:
  1. Keep the number of people you invite small.
  2. Make sure to phrase your invitation in a neutral way, e.g. "There's a discussion I thought you might be interested in; you can comment here (provide link)", as opposed to, "There's a group trying to get this page deleted and I need you to help me stop it!"
  3. Disclose on the discussion page that you've invited others into the discussion and say who.
  4. Remember that the "articles for deletion" process is not based on majority rule, but rather on the strength of the arguments made. It might count against you if you invite a bunch of people and they just post "keep" votes with no explanation or restate things you've already said (see WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT).
One thing you might consider; a lot of sporting communities form a "project" and everyone in the project is able to see project articles that are proposed for deletion. I've got no idea how you would go about starting a new "MMA Project" if you were so inclined, but you could start by looking at WP:PROJ. —Rnickel (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Great, thanks for the help. I appreciate the education. Mmasource (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbole

Hyperbole is never an effective way to make a case. The removal of 3 sentences that (1.) is unencyclopedic because it's news; and (2.) has been tagged for years without a reliable source being provided hardly qualifies as an "overzealous" deletion. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at the scenario WhisperToMe (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you would provide concrete examples of the wholesale deletions to which you refer. Nebulous, global assertions are not much use in figuring out what you're referring to. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tip o' the hat

Thanks for referencing up the 2011 end times prediction page! --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In Über, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages Super and Toy Soldiers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time pyramid

I suggest you check the source properly first before making false claims of original research! Calistemon (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are fair enough and I appologise if you felt personally attact. But WP:AGF has to go both ways. Don't just automatically assume its original research when something is referenced but you can't find the information yourself. Websites change and information disappears quite quickly and Wikipedia allows for this. A post in regards to this on the article talk page rather than threatening to remove it all and saying "Seems like someone's original conjectures in the "Timing" section". In one regard you are still mistaken, the information is there in German, too, as it is in English, French, Dutch and Spanish. Just klick Concept and than the desired language. The website's major downfall is that it displays the same address for every version of the page. The reason I left a message on your talk page is that I assumed you wouldn't necessarily watch the article. Keep well, Calistemon (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Border (disambiguation)

Redirects to redlinks can be speedily deleted per {{db-subpage}}. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Battle of the Dance

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mariachi Divas de Cindy Shea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Downtown Disney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mariachi Divas

Hey there. I like the article and the tweaks you've made, but there are two minor concerns I have. There's still some peacock words, or probably more accurately some "dramatic prose" such as the sentence that begins "A big break ...". That seems a bit too, well, dramatic for an encyclopedia article. Also, you may want to add additional sourcing to the "Early career" section of the article. Aside from that, good work! --McDoobAU93 13:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I went ahead and approved it, since the issues remaining are very minor and shouldn't hold it up. I also made a suggestion for the Grammy hook, if you'd care to look at it and see what you think. --McDoobAU93 13:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mariachi Divas de Cindy Shea, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Control, Cristina and Jenny Rivera. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mariachi Divas de Cindy Shea

Gatoclass (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Rnickel. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Rnickel. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Rnickel. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve The Last Witness (1999 film)

Hello, Rnickel,

Thanks for creating The Last Witness (1999 film)! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

This has been tagged for 2 issues. Imdb cannot be used as a reference as it is unreliable.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn: I am on vacation at the moment with no computer (only my phone) but I added two references including a TV Guide review. I can do some more once I am home, but your note said "two issues", one being the IMDB reference... what was the other? Thx. Rnickel (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Rnickel, at the moment it lacks reliable sources and it isn't clear how it meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG, so is tagged for referencing and notability issues. Please relax and enjoy your vacation, and just have a look when you get back. Thanks for your work on this, Boleyn (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]