User talk:ApprenticeFan/Archive 6

Speedy deletion declined: Stuart Atkinson
Hello ApprenticeFan, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Stuart Atkinson - a page you tagged - because: speedy deletion was declined by another admin already, do not re-tag. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know.  So Why  12:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Merging the row of doube eliminations on NTM shows
Your recent edit of merging the names of two contestants in the call out order table of the NTM articles makes no sense since their can easily be two background colours needed for them for example when one of them won the reward challenge or did not participate in a photoshoot. I re-edited most of you tables therefore since I think we both agree there should be a standard of how the double-eliminations are indicated on wikipedia pages. regars Shameless (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I really had an idea to fix the table. It is okay to re-do it. ApprenticeFan  talk  contribs 01:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * but why did you re-edit all of them after this message again??? Shameless (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I restored it. ApprenticeFan  talk  contribs 23:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * just to clarify: you were asking me to re-doing your edits because you were admitting that they would not make any sense but now you keep editing them the way you want? Why do you do this? I think we all appreciate your ambition in editing sections here but that does not mean that you can model wikipedia strictly under your ideas when there are better ways to keep the guidelines. Shameless (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright claim
In regard to I did not have sexual relations with that woman, you suggested speedy deletion as a copyright violation from The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, but I could not find a copyvio when comparing the two pages. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

KAL 902
Hello. The template you've added to this article shows the flight in bold, and therefore suggests it had 50+ casualties, however it only had 2. This is apparently because the active article always appears in bold in the template. So I'm not sure that bold is working too well to convey information here - aren't you perhaps trying to cram too much information into this template? Socrates2008 ( Talk  )   13:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Aviation accidents and incidents
Template:Aviation accidents and incidents has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.LeadSongDog come howl  16:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hashim nawaz jung bahadur sardar bahadur
Just to let you know, I reverted your reverting of the removal of the prod. This is not to say that I object to the prod, but it is just a matter of procedure. Unlike a speedy deletion nomination (cannot be removed by the original author) or a articles for deletion nomination (cannot be removed until the AFD has closed), the prod can be removed by anyone for any reason. I realize that the editor did not give a reason in the edit summary, but that is not a strict requirement. Please feel free to nominate the article on AFD. Let me know if there are problems and sorry for the revert. Thank you for all your help. Plastikspork (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Mfd - thanks
thanks for closing this. I couldn't find necessary templates as don't frequent MfD much. StarM 04:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Pink phone
Hello ApprenticeFan, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Pink phone - a page you tagged - because: it's still not recently created (see previous decline), also, might be plausible (check Google News). Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know.  So Why  12:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification, the title redirect is now on RFD. ApprenticeFan  talk  contribs 23:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Mika's second studio album
Hi ApprenticeFan. It may be worth taking another look at this, as the situation has substantially changed since you made your comment. Thanks. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 15:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

A tip
I noticed the Google searches that you linked in Articles for deletion/Walk with a doc and Articles for deletion/Thorsten Willer, and would like to point out that more specific searches can be made by enclosing a phrase in double quotes: for example and. That way you just get matches for the exact phrase, rather than for the individual words. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of The Amazing Race 16
I have nominated The Amazing Race 16, 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 Articles for deletion/The Amazing Race 16. 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. Guy0307 (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

X-Y relations commenting on !votes moratorium.
I'd like to propose a voluntary moratorium on commenting on others peoples !votes in bilateral relations AfDs. At this point, I don't think there's anything to be gained from such comments--obviously no one is convincing anyone--meanwhile, the acrimony rises and uninvolved editors are discouraged from weighing in. See this masterpiece for a prime example. So how about we just don't comment on each others' votes? This moratorium would not cover general comments, i.e. those which aren't indented under and/or in response to a specific !vote (e.g. ), but these should be kept to an absolute minimum. I intend invite all of the "usual suspects" to join this moratorium. I've missed someone, please invite them. Please discuss, and ideally note whether you intend to abide by this here. Thanks. Yilloslime T C  16:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tracey
Ah .. very kind of you to let me know of this. Looking over the article's history, I notice that my last contribution to it was around 5 years ago, so forgive me if I seem surprised to be informed of its proposed deletion. On balance, I'd have to say I'd not favour deleting it; the original purpose of the article still stands. Have you considered just removing the hoax material or even simpler rolling it back to the last good version? - TB (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (comment from a TPS) It appears you created it as a redirect, which was indeed useful. It could be reverted to that state, or, one could let the PROD run, then recreate it as a redirect page after it has been deleted. Plastikspork (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So, the article was tagged as CSD A7 and declined by SoWhy . It has no external links for the article, if the PROD is contested, I'll take it over to AFD. ApprenticeFan  talk  contribs 23:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comments on the Amazing Race 16 AFD
What do you mean by "really wish WikiNazis could raise the talk page"? It sounds like something which should be discussed elsewhere. Plastikspork (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't know about the WikiNazi thing. Now let's go to the article, the "APPLICATION FORM" and "APPLICATION PROCEDURE AND ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS" pdf are seen on CBS website. .  ApprenticeFan  talk  contribs 22:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What was the purpose of the "WikiNazis" comment if you don't know about it? It just seemed like a strange comment with no context, and I was hoping you might be able to clarify what you meant. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed the word to "editors" in the said AFD discussion. ApprenticeFan  talk  contribs 23:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Kord (band)
Hi ApprenticeFan. Please do not re-add speedy deletion tags to articles once they have been declined by a reviewing administrator. In this case G4 does not apply, as I previously noted in my declining edit summary.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)