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

On May 1, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert O. Peterson, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

DYK for Robert Krentz

On May 6, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Krentz, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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]