Welcome, Tomhill1980!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions!
You might like to check out our tutorial, a resource created especially for new users like yourself.
You also may want to introduce yourself to the community at the new user log.
I would suggest a look through our policies and guidelines.
If you have any questions, you can ask me on my talk page, or at our questions forum.
I hope very much you enjoy being here with us, and I wish you luck with your contributions.

- Zapptastic at 20:05, Saturday, June 8, 2024 (UTC)

WP:SOAP The whole section on OA is irrelevant to the publisher. If you think it's material that's missing from the open access article, then put it there, but in the Libertas page all that needs to be said is that they're an open access publisher and a brief outline of their policies, which is what's there. Given that it still looks like an ad, you should be thankful that it hasn't been deleted. KarlM (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Gene regulation and systems biology, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://zillman.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default/8336983929308395007. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 06:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Gene regulation and systems biology requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I urge =you to try to do the article again, not using previously published material,and try to show that it is actually at present important. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help. DGG (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. I will re-write the entry as you suggest.

Tom, you need to show that the page Evolutionary Bioinformatics is notable. Please add citations from credible sources referring to the journal, and edit the article so it is not promotional. (COI: I work for BioMed Central). Fences and windows (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a rather substantial conflict of interest, but point taken. I have removed the Editorial Policies section, which I think is most obviously at fault, and added a section on Notable articles, which contains a description of the criteria used to determine notability. In the absence of any indication of specific weaknesses I have removed the notability and avert tags, but I welcome further feedback on these points.

Of course it is a conflict of interest, which is why I declared it. People are discouraged from writing articles about their own company, mind. Fences and windows (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not confirmed by people viewing articles. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline This is not a vendetta against a competitor, that article does not appear to meet inclusion criteria for Wikipedia. Note that there is not a page for each of the 180+ BioMed Central journals. Fences and windows (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found this note on user DGG's page: "A journal publishing notable articles is notable, and the articles are established as being notable by the people who write them, as is shown by their being cited". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG/journals#Criteria. I have removed the Notability notice Fences and windows (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Clinical medicine: oncology requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Leonard^(Bloom) 03:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bioinformatics and Biology Insights has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Bioinformatics and Biology Insights – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((dated prod)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((dated prod)) will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 13:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Clinical Medicine: Oncology has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Clinical Medicine: Oncology – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((dated prod)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((dated prod)) will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 13:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Libertas Academica is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertas Academica until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]