User talk:MolecEpidemiolFan

Copyright policy advisement regarding articles
Dear MolecEpidemiolFan, regarding your contribution to International Journal of Molecular Epidemiology and Genetics, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from web sites or printed material without the express permission of the author or copyright holder. This article appears to be a direct copy from this URL: http://ijmeg.org/ As a copyright violation, the article has been deleted under the speedy deletion criteria.

If you choose to recreate the article, please ensure that the material is written in your own words. If you believe that using sentences from the source is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License 3.0 (CC-BY-SA), then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at the talk page of the new article and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the CC-By-SA or compatible license or released into the public domain leave a note at the talk page of the new article with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material, you may either send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to <permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-By-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on the talk page of the article, or place a note releasing the material as above at the external site. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thank you for your note. The quickest way to verify permission is probably to put a note on the original website, but if you choose to send an e-mail under the processes described at Donating copyrighted materials, it should all still be sorted within a day or two. If you plan to do either of those, please let me know, and I'll restore the article with the "copyright problems" template blanking it until the process is complete. We keep the article blanked until permission is verified just to be on the safe side, as occasionally something goes wrong with the permission process. Material placed on Wikipedia is widely copied almost as soon as it arrives, and holding back publication until permission is verified not only protects the project, but also ensures that copyright holders don't lose control of their materials. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if you start a new thread; the main goal is communication. :) Yes, absolutely, you can start a new page in your own words if you'd rather. If you then go through the permission process, the content that has already been removed can be restored. But, of course, it may not be necessary if you've started a page in your own words. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems all clear, so I've moved it into article space. I note that it needs sources that are not connected to the subject, though. There's some general tips at WP:YFA which might help. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They probably won't be "speedily deleted", which is the process that is used when an article is unambiguously inappropriate. If you plan to work on them further, you might consider tagging them underconstruction. To do that, you just paste underconstruction, curly brackets and all, at the top of the article. This is a way of letting other editors know that you aren't finished. If they are speedily deleted, they can be restored to your userspace by any administrator on request for further development, so no worries. Unless the material is a violation of copyright or libelous, that's usually not an issue. I'd be happy to help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of E-century publishing corporation
A tag has been placed on E-century publishing corporation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Alexius08 (talk) 03:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know, since I have your talkpage listed and saw this, I simply userfied proactively. It's at User:MolecEpidemiolFan/E-century publishing corporation. You should read over WP:ORG to see how this corporation meets the notability criteria and revise the article to give some indication of its notability. Speedy deletion is not your real danger here. An article that has been speedily deleted can be recreated at any time. The danger is deletion debate. If the article is deleted following one of those, it can be much harder to reestablish it, since an administrator can delete it later if it does not resolve the questions raised in the debate.


 * A few points to consider. You may have a "conflict of interest" here and, even if you don't feel you do have a conflict, should proceed very careful with working on articles related to the company. See WP:COI and WP:BFAQ for ideas how best to do that. It's best for both Wikipedia and the company if you do proceed carefully, since articles that are deemed to violate COI are generally tagged with a fairly unattractive COI warning, which suggests to readers of the article that there may be some sneaky self-promotion going on. Nobody wants this. :) I have worked on many articles about businesses, products and individuals with no relation to myself and I know that it can be tricky to skirt the line between what others will see as "indicating significance" and promotion. Where you are involved with the company, people will probably tend to view the article even more narrowly. If I were trying to establish an article on a business with which I was connected, I would be open about my connection and before putting the article into mainspace would seek feedback at both the "drawing board", where contributors can get feedback on new article ideas, and the conflict of interest noticeboard. If volunteers there thought there was no problem, I'd ask one of them to move the article into mainspace.


 * That aside, the absolute best way to establish notability is to reference reliable sources such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, and reputable websites. The more the merrier. When considering how many, keep in mind that an indepth article in a high-profile, prestigious publication is going to go further here than a one-line mention in a local paper.


 * If there is not yet extensive reliable coverage of the organization, you may want to delay creation of an article on it until there is. Again, establishing the article after a deletion debate has closed with "delete" is a bit more difficult than starting fresh.


 * Sorry for the huge text dump, but when a contributor is trying to work within the system, I hate to see him (or her) struggling. :) You've picked a tricky place to start. I hope some of this will be helpful to you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of International Journal of Molecular Epidemiology and Genetics
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is International Journal of Molecular Epidemiology and Genetics. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/International Journal of Molecular Epidemiology and Genetics. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)