User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 26

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_harra
HELP !! I worked for HOURS on this page!! Is the material saved ELSEWHERE?? You should AT LEAST Give NOTICE to creator Before deleting someone's work - I am very sick also! I'm sorry _ I do think that is a RUDE tactic! 174.102.215.35 (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The page creator was warned that their article had been nominated for deletion. Your work was not lost however; it can be accessed at any time and I'd be willing to send you a copy of the article by e-mail, if you use this form to contact me. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 20:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

ACSAC
Salvio - there are various other "security conference" pages with little or no notability, yet those pages remain in WikiPedia. It is unclear why ACSAC has been singled out, and the page deleted with less than week's notice after the last issue was addressed. The ACSAC committee was seeking out an online link to a Hawaii Public Radio piece on the conference, along with other media references. Simply searching the Net for ACSAC will show hundreds, if not thousands of references, from papers published in the conference, but we were looking to provide more than just those.
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|18px]] Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 21:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Full protection of Nicosia
Hi Salvio. I just wanted to comment that the full protection of Nicosia as a content dispute is wrong. There is no content dispute whatsoever. The only disputed content is added (or rather erased) by socks bent on erasing the Turkish presence on Nicosia and threatening established editors using legal threats. There is nothing to negotiate. These POV-pushing IPs ought to be blocked on sight and the article unprotected as soon as you can. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked if the situation could be solved just by blocking the edit-warring IPs, which, by the way, I did due to legal threats, but I saw that over the last few weeks, one of the seals has kept being removed and added back again over and over. I feel the article could still benefit from the protection, as Talk:Nicosia seems to prove. However, if there is a consensus that I erred, I'll immediately unprotect. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 10:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. I understand. It is indeed a tough predicament due to the increased sock/meatpuppet activity. However since there is nothing to debate and the socks keep coming, it is a rather unusual situation in which talkpage debate is unlikely to end in the consensus which would end the full protection. This is why IMO in the long run it would be better to simply suppress the sock/meatpuppet activity rather than fully protecting the article. See also Sockpuppet investigations/Giorgoos and . Dr.K. λogosπraxis  14:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see your point! I'd be willing to downgrade the protection to semi, keeping an eye on the article, to see if any more socks pop up. Would this be a better solution, in your opinion? Salvio  Let's talk about it! 14:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. It would be the optimal solution IMO. Thank you very much Salvio. Take care and gracie. Dr.K. λogosπraxis  14:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If discussion on the talk page doesn't result in consensus, it would still be something to point to when reverting disruptive edits - and although the arguments don't have much support the edits shouldn't be reverted as "vandalism". The talk page and edit history just show that edits have been rejected or reverted, without substantial discussion. Full protection could be useful, but most of the disruption is from new/anonymous users or sockpuppets, and their edits show that they are unlikely to accept consensus, so semi is probably enough. The talk page can be used for discussion with or without protection of the article. Peter E. James (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand the comment: Full protection could be useful, but most of the disruption is from new/anonymous users or sockpuppets,... does ..most of the disruption... imply that there is some disruption coming in from the established editors as well? and how Full protection could be useful,... if all the other editors except the SPAs and the socks agree that the proposed edits are POV-pushing and unacceptable? Are we trying to prevent regular (non-SPA, non-sock) editors from editing the article? Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagreement would have been a better word to use, but there were excessive reverts from both sides. I mentioned that semi would probably be enough. Peter E. James (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see this in simpler terms. There can be no "excessive reverts" from the side of the regular editors if what is being reverted is blanking of the Turkish facts of Nicosia coupled by the repeated use of the adjective "illegal" almost every time the term "Northern Cyprus" was used. The violation of several WP policies by the sock edits is both egregious and apparent. The SPA edits have no leg to stand on. Thus there should be no discussion about excessive reverts on the side of the regular editors. Dr.K. λogosπraxis  18:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The "illegal" argument has been rejected, but there are also the edits by Neo ^, and a summary stating that the municipality "was never created legitimately", which should be taken to the talk page if they are to be continued. Peter E. James (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the reason why I originally fully protected the article; technically, those edits are not really vandalism, in my opinion, and, so, you might end up violating 3-rr if you keep reverting them... Salvio  Let's talk about it! 18:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The edit summary of Neo, in the link Peter E. James provided, reads in part: The Nicosia Turkish Municipality is illegal and for that it should not be mentioned... According to this logic so is Northern Cyprus. Are you up to putting it for AfD? Clearly not. Illegal or not the Turkish section of Nicosia is de-facto reality and it has been the long-standing consensus at the article that it should be included in the article. There is nothing new here to debate or argue. The consensus has been and still is clear among established editors at that article. As far as violating 3RR there are enough editors protecting this article from SPAs noone is at serious risk of violating it. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The summary was by Lefkos 79, who was blocked as a sockpuppet - the reasons given by Neo (who was only removing a logo, and has used the talk page since protection) are less clear:. Situations where a user is refusing to accept consensus and continuing to edit war can be treated as disruption (such as Giorgoos and sockpuppets), and maybe IAR should be used for 3RR in these cases, but there may be other arguments proposed. Peter E. James (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

@ I entirely agree with you; to say otherwise would be POV-pushing. My point was just that this is not vandalism. That said, I'm now going to downgrade the protection, even though I've not yet heard from, which I'd have liked. Well, if trouble starts up again, protection is cheap... Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (different timezone :P) Good call. K is right, this was mainly about the IPs and socks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Grazie Mille Salvio. I agree with you that it may not have been vandalism. There are enough shades of disruptive editing that may have covered these disputed edits, but perhaps not pure vandalism. Nicosia is a difficult topic with a very troubled history. It is difficult to keep the article in a stable version and your initial reaction to protect it fully was understandable and even commendable because this is a complex topic and there are no easy or obvious answers. So I accept your logic for full protection and I can fully see your point. I may even be wrong in my assessment of the current consensus, as it could eventually change. But, in all cases, it should not change with legal threats and edit-warring SPAs but with calm and reasoned discussion. In this regard I respect Peter E. James's civil and measured approach on the talkpage of the article. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Salvio. I can't see real consensus currrently being achieved in Nicosia page. The information provided in the summary is inconsistent and misleading. In some cases it's mentioned that the Turkish Municipality is recognised and in some places it says that its de facto. We need to agree on what to say. There is a lot of refinement that has to take place. To start with, we need to look at the issue historically as it is not a simple one. Historically the Municipalities Issue started before the creation of the Republic of Cyprus in 1960 and even though mentioned in the constitution, negotiations about how to go about implementing separate municipalities carried on until 1964 when Turkish-Cypriots left the official government. After the Turkish Invasion and the declaration of TRNC the Nicosia Turkish Municipality ceased to exist and became attached to the TRNC - which makes it a de facto entity and not recognised by Cyprus as the article wrongly suggests. A good page we should take as an example (which actually represents an even more controversial issue) is Kosovo. The wording there is much more precise and balanced and the same style should be used for Nicosia. Please have a look at my comments, references and suggestions in the discussion page. Masri145 (talk) 10:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Masri145, I must be honest I know very little about the controversy; I merely protected the article because an edit war was ongoing, which is disruptive, and had to be stopped. I did not take sides in the underlying dispute and, quite frankly, I'm not even really sure who's right. And, besides, admins do not determine who is right in a dispute; we are editors just like anyone else who can act, using a set tool we're granted and that allows us to block people and protect articles, when there have been violations of Wikipedia's behavioural rules. Therefore, unfortunately, I'm not in a position to help you at the moment. If you feel you have not received satisfactory replies to your concerns, however, you can follow one of Wikipedia's dispute resolution methods; in this case a request for comment or a mediation (either at WP:MEDCAB or at WP:MEDCOM) would be appropriate next steps. Please just note that mediation is a voluntary process and nobody has to take part in it, if they don't so want. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 10:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Rollback
Thanks for reviewing my application! Regardless of the decision, I'll work on improving my reverts. --BigDwiki (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * They're very good already. Just slow down when in doubt.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 18:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

User: Arunsingh16
Hi Salvio. Thanks for your message (on rollback request). I am relatively new to Wiki when compared to you guys. I write and clean up articles in my free time. Can you supervise me for some time and point out the mistake I make? Your help will be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Cheers, Arun Singh
 * I'm on Wikipedia on and off during the week, so I cannot guarantee I'll be always available, but I'd be glad to! So I'll immediately start being fastidious: please, always remember to sign your posts...  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 00:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirect of 6666 to Ayah
Hi, I noticed you had reverted the 6666 page to redirect to Ayah. Somebody mistakenly thinks that the Quran has 6666 verses, however by all verifiable accounts it has at most 6236 verses. Ayah page as well as the Quran page reflect this fact. We should restore 6666 to some other version. Thanks! - Shaad lko (talk) 04:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. I've just changed the redirect's destination. Thanks for your note. Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 13:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) - Shaad lko (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

COI
Salvio. You have said that this thread has served its purpose of drawing attention. I don’t see why you think that the purpose has been served? How many fresh users are taking interest in the article due to this? Do you think the problem is already solved? Why can issues can only be notified there, but not discussed? What is the meaning of disrupting a discussion midway? Why was I and the user who started that thread not given a chance to give our opinions whether the purpose of the thread is complete or not? On which other noticeboards is this issue being discussed? You have also collapsed another thread on that noticeboard without any apparent logical reason. These threads were started just a few days ago and the discussion is surely far from complete. I had put up some questions in the thread and was getting dishonest replies. I was trying to expose the dishonesty in those replies. Because the thread has been closed, the users who were behaving dishonestly now do not need to explain their dishonest and mischievous behavior. I feel that the thread was closed only to prevent some users from being exposed as being dishonest and mischievous. Why is it necessary to collapse threads. Even if it be necessary to close them, they can be closed without collapsing them. Is collapsing not an attempt at censoring discussions? I also see that you have not given any sort of warnings to those users even when their mischievous canvassing was staring you in the face. You have also not given any warning to Sitush when it was pointed out to you that he was saying things insulting things, (in violation of WP:Civil). . It appears that you are acting in an uneven fashion. This is a dispute between eds with a Western POV and eds with an Indic POV. It appears that you too have a Western POV. As such, it is reasonable to think that you have a COI here. As such, I hope that you will excuse yourself from making admin interventions in such situations.-MangoWong (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The number of new users a given thread has brought to a talk page is a bit beside the point, honestly. The point is that such a discussion has been in a position where it has presumably been seen by a decent number of people interested in India-related topics. If nobody has expressed the desire to chime in, well, that's unfortunate, but not a good reason to keep a discussion open, when it has gone so completely off-topic. Noticeboards are only there to inform people that a discussion that they might be interested in is going on somewhere. If they want to actually discuss the article, they can do it on its talk page. That's the purpose of article's talk pages. And I was not disrupting a discussion midway, I was merely closing it, as it had gone irremediably off-topic. If you want to continue the discussion, please, be my guest; do it on the relevant talk page and I will not touch those threads. To rehash the same arguments again and again over many different noticeboards doesn't help; it only confuses the readers, who have to go through various pages to repeat the same objections. That said, 's actions were not canvassing; please, do read WP:CANVASSING. That was merely a neutrally worded note dropped on the relevant noticeboard. If you read the policy, you'll see that it is something that's actually encouraged. And, furthermore, I consider my role as an admin not to mean that I should leave a warning whenever someone is uncivil. I prefer to intervene only when serious violations of Wikipedia's rules occur (such as blatant personal attacks, edit warring, legal threats or things of that kind) or when I see an ongoing pattern of incivility, which in this case I do not see. During a heated discussion, I know that some of the participants may lose their cool and be less than civil. That's unfortunate, but it's only natural and not something that needs my intervention. If you read the various discussions in an emotionless manner you'll see that both sides have actually not being that civil from time to time... Finally, I'm most definitely not going to excuse myself from making admin interventions in that area. First of all, you're confusing COI with POV; a person may have a point of view, but no conflict of interest (for instance, I have a point of view regarding Amanda Knox's innocence, but clearly, I have no COI with regard to the matter), but that's not the point, because, more importantly, you can't know my point of view on this issue (you actually can't even know if I have a point of view at all), because I've never expressed it and, above all, I've never given my tuppence worth during any content disputes. I've merely acted in an administrative capacity, blocking obvious block-evading socks and issuing a couple of warnings to people who were violating rules regarding conduct. I'm perfectly neutral on the issue; you can only assume I share a Western point of view because I come from a Western country. Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion regarding my point of view, but that's just that: your opinion. And I'm not going to recuse from acting as an admin in a given area of conflict just based on that. I'll start doing so as soon as I become involved, according to Wikipedia's rules; but, until then, as I've said, no, I'll keep using my mop, whenever I deem appropriate. I'm sorry. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 13:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * User:MangoWong - hm. - Sitush (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you could try and nominate the page for deletion at WP:MFD, as a violation of WP:UP, but I'd advise against it, as I can only inflamne the situation... Apart from that, there's very little that can be done. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 10:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would only inflame. It is indicative of what some of those involved in current discussions are up against. I think that there is a lot of frustration around at the moment but why this group of people should suddenly have emerged is beyond me. I understand the concept of systemic bias, obviously, & have tried to explain that it extends beyond India-related topics & into the wider sphere of the very pillars of WP: consensus, verifiability etc. There are plenty of Indian contributors who are happy with the work being done, so an element of WP:Coatrack may be involved. However, I am Public Enemy #1 at the moment and will just have to ride it out. - Sitush (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can sympthise with the way you feel, having been in a similar position myself, a while back; my only suggestion, if I may, would be to do something completely different from time to time, when you feel that your level of frustration is rising. I did vandal fighting and wrote something in my sandboxes, but there are lots of other things you can do. Just forget about the article for a couple of days and let someone else hold the fort ; after all, most of the articles are protected ot on a decent number of people's watchlists. This helped me not burn out... Salvio  Let's talk about it! 14:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and I have been doing. See Lohara dynasty. Kurmi comes off protection today, though, and the idea of that protection was to get the thing resolved on the talk page ... which seems not to have happened. Probably needs protection extending for another week. - Sitush (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If edit warring starts again, don't worry the article will be reprotected for a longer period of time; for the moment, I'd rather wait, due to my unshakable faith in mankind...  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 14:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, I've taken a look at Lohara dynasty; very good article! My compliments! Salvio  Let's talk about it! 14:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It needs more sources but I've also had to fettle the linked articles, which were pretty hopeless. I'll get it there eventually - no deadline etc. It is a shame that there are no images but they didn't have cameras back then (!), and seem not to have bothered with paintings etc. - Sitush (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Kantar Media
Hi Salvio,

I have just noticed that you took down Kantar Media's article because of Spam. In my opinion, the ton of voice was maybe too promotional, but I am sure some elements are still valuable. Depending on your opinion, If you have time to review your judgement, and restore it, I could help rewrite in order to make it more neutral. Please let me know how I can help on this. Thanks. Hespéranope (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just userfied the page for you, you can now find it here. You can work on it and, when you're done, you can ask for feedback at WP:FEEDBACK. In this case, the article, in my opinion, read like the "about us" section of a website and, as such, its tone warranted speedy deletion under criterion G11. If you could try to get it to sound a little more neutral, it would be great... Salvio  Let's talk about it! 11:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this. I am going to review it asap. I'll drop you a line here once rewriting is done...Best, -d. Hespéranope (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hopeful Inquiry
Dear Mr. Giuliano,

I am writing with the hopeful intention of editing a previously deleted page in order to add the content necessary to make it worthy of a Wikipedia entry. I previously wrote a page for Rubberbanditz, a small exercise equipment company, but seem to have included erroneous or self-promoting pieces of information that resulted in deletion. Is there any way to write the article in a manner objective enough to merit a page on Wikipedia or is this task just an impossibility?

Thanks so much,

Gtlangseth (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm not going to restore your article; while the main reason it was deleted is that the article was unambiguously promotional in nature, the organisation it was about is not notable enough to qualify for inclusion. Even if I userfied the article for you to work on, as soon as you move it back to article space, it'll be nominated for deletion again due to lack of notability. In brief, only notable subjects can have articles written about them; and, to be notable, a subject must have received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Therefore, I'm sorry, but I don't want to give you false hopes; if you can't provide reliable sources to back up this organisation's notability, sadly, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 10:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

India notice board, your closing Sitush and Kurmi
I was merely trying to get a third opinion as adviced in the dispute resolution process. I think you should open the discussion. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, you went about it in the wrong way; you should have followed the instructions on the pages, namely Third opinion; to raise the issue on the other noticeboard was inappropriate. Besides, this is an editing dispute which involves more than just two people, so a third opinion was not really the best method of dispute resolution ou could choose... In this case, since this is a dispute regarding 's conduct, a request for comment or an WP:ANI thread would have been better choices (although, if you choose ANI, please be aware of WP:BOOMERANG). Moreover, if you accept my unsolicited advice, I believe your complaint would be closed rather fast (though I undertake not to close it); the best thing you can do is talk with Sitush. And, more in general, try to contribute to a calmer editing environment, since, at the moment, the topic area seems to be a battleground. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 10:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No it isn't content dispute it is behaviour, thanks for boomerang, I know. I know.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please open the discussion on India page if you are convinced.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yogesh, you know full well that MangoWong has started a thread at ANI (you have contributed to it), so there is no point re-opening the one at the India project even if it was a valid forum. Like the India one, the ANI thread has got out of focus very quickly, but that is another story. - Sitush (talk) 07:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sitush; one thread is already open, please discuss there; to keep on opening thread after thread about someone may look like vexatious litigation... Salvio  Let's talk about it! 09:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No Sitush and Salvio giuliano: I was trying informal, AN/I is formal which I wanted to avoid. My edit on India notice was closed before MangoWango's AN/I.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

deletion of 3c1b telekom
Hi

In wiki even a none licensed company page is permitted "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicell" but you are deleting a licensed telecom cpmpany page. If you look at the turkey telephone numbering plan you will see that we are one of the number block owners in Turkey. We are a landline operator and also internet service provider.

Also you can check from http://www.btk.gov.tr/elektronik_haberlesme_sektoru/yetkilendirme/isletmeciler/isletmeci.php?yetkitipi=STH_K and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilgi_Teknolojileri_ve_%C4%B0leti%C5%9Fim_Kurumu
 * Do you work for this company? If so, you have a conflict of interest. Therefore, I must ask you to please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policy regarding conflicts of interest. That said, Wikipedia, being an encyclopaedia, can only have articles about notable subjects — which, in Wikijargon means the ones which have received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources —. Furthermore, per WP:OSE, that other similar articles exist is an argument which carries little weight and that will typically be dismissed while still assuming good faith, because all articles are judged on their own merits... If you believe that Multicell fails Wikipedia's notability requirements, you can nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD. I'm sorry. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 21:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy delete
Thanks for purging the evidence of my screw-up so quickly. VIWS talk 21:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. I love deleting G7s...  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 13:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

My Seed of Truth
Hey Salvio,

I am trying to let people know about my project and thought using Wikipedia would be a good way to let people know that my project is legit. My website has been up for almost a year now and the site has recieved traffic from over 5,000 visitors in over 55 counties since August 24, 2010. This project will be big and I really need your help by letting My Seed of Truth be faetured on your site. My e-book once commpleted will be available for the world to download for free on my website so the whole world can benefit. The link will show you some of what people around the world have written so far. http://www.myseedoftruth.com/Truth_From_The_World.html

Salvio, this project will do the world a lot of good and I really need your hlep to have this project featured on your site. Can you please tell me what needs to change or what I need to do, to have My Seed of Truth featured on your site.

Respectfully,

David Rivera David@MySeedofTruth.com
 * While the page was deleted under speedy deletion criterion G11, as unambiguous promotion, there is also another problem: I'm not sure your project is notable enough... Wikipedia, being an encyclopaedia, has requirements which a given subject must meet to qualify for inclusion. While I invite you to read the policy, WP:N, in a nuthsell, this means that only subjects which have received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources can have articles written about them. If you wish to tell the world about your project, you can read Alternative outlets, which contains some possibly useful links. I'm sorry. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 13:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

edit request
Hi, I saw you were editing, would you look at this edit request for me, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Could you please check I did not mess anything up, thanks? Salvio  Let's talk about it! 15:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes its correct and working now - I added the state=collapsed to Harold Covington BLP and your addition has collapsed it, adding that doesn't collapse automatically but just allows the possibility - I appreciate the swift attention - regards. Off2riorob (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy del declined
Ok, I've seen. No problem. My "tag" was due to the deletion of this page (a copy of user page) and to this request. But reading better the page it is not an unambiguous self-promo. Regards :-) --Dэя-Бøяg 21:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It may not be self-promo, but it's not really appropriate either, as it seems to be a violation of WP:NOTRESUME; my suggestion, for what it's worth, would be to discuss with the user and, if that accomplishes nothing, you can send it to WP:MFD. I've noindexed the page, however...  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 21:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Door stop (disambiguation)
Hello とある白い猫. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Door stop (disambiguation), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is patent nonsense. I created the page in the past to sort out disambiguation issues that no longer exist. Please delete it. -- とある白い猫 chi? 21:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While I agree that the page is entirely inappropriate (Doorstopolgy?), it's not nonsense under WP:G1... Granted, I might delete per criterion G13, but it doesn't really matter: in a couple of days the page will be zapped all the same and, in the meantime, it doesn't actually hurt anybody... Salvio  Let's talk about it! 21:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

that was quick
Well, I don't really see what the hurry was to delete the GiveButtons page. I am working on the notability issue. I wasn't trying to link the page to anything. If you give me a copy of the page that was deleted I'd appreciate it. I can understand the rationale, but your policy on notability, as it is being implemented, favours the established and the wealthy. Chignell (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)