User talk:Geokipolitoniko

Speedy Deletion Template
Actually, according to the template itself, which states, "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself", you are not allowed to remove the speedy deletion template from articles you create.

Still, I will take a step back, as I am not interested in causing an edit-war. Have a good day.

Regards, Underscorre (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Since I presented a justification for removing it (A7 criterium is wrong since he is a well-cited researcher), I was on my right to remove the non-intentional vandalism you've done. Reverting vandalism (in this case, non-intentional, since you are a decent editor) is the first rule to be followed on Wikipedia. Geokipolitoniko (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, since, in my opinion, the template is pretty clear about page creators having to use the talk page to contest a speedy deletion. Anyway, thanks for the compliment, and the interesting discussion, I hope to run into you again at some point.


 * Underscorre (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, but please keep in mind that Wikipedia's rules frequently enter in conflict. It's like the book hero who swears to always protect the Princess and always help the King, but then discovers that the King wants to kill the Princess. I do appreciate polite editors, and you are one for sure. You too, have a good day. Sincerely, Geokipolitoniko (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't want to stir up trouble, but the first rule of Wikipedia is arguably Be bold. Regardless, I am not sure if the article passes the General notability guideline. Does Yoshiharu Kohayakawa have significant independent source coverage? Is he mentioned in places other than for being a coauthor of some papers? I am still trying to assess the notability of the subject. Thanks π♂101 (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the addition of the speedy tag was not vandalism in any manner, as the page did not and still does not explain even why the subject is important. Please try to assume good faith. π♂101 (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I will work on that. Just give me time for eating and drinking something and I will be back to editing the article. Geokipolitoniko (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I have to say that the page is looking better now. However, we still will need an independent editor (or two) to determine if the subject is notable enough. I feel as though I am now too involved in this to make the call. Let's just leave the tag for now. π♂101 (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Notability has been established. But I agree with you that we are involved, so I will restore it and wait for third-party. Geokipolitoniko (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I suppose that if nobody protests or says anything for a few days that it would probably be acceptable for you to remove the tag. Good day. π♂101 (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Good day. Geokipolitoniko (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * removed the tag. π♂101 (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)