User talk:Regisbates

You look like a single purpose account to me.

Dear Regisbates,

Are you a Single purpose account? I couldn't help but notice that all your contributions revolve around one subject, which is advertising for VADLO. Some of your edits were removed, for example your signature [1] in the VADLO article, that you happen to have created yourself [2] (ownership of articles is forbidden). And your link to the VADLO comic [3] in the List of webcomics article was reverted recently.

Are you the owner of the company? This would cause Conflict of interest. I'd like to ask you to leave editing of Life in Research LLC related articles to other people for a while. Try exploring other areas of Wikipedia instead, and read the WP:SPA article to find out more about why single purpose accounts are unadvised.

Thank you, •ː• 3ICE •ː• 11:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the owner, but this is the one website I like the most, am avid user, and have taken it upon myself to make sure has good wikipedia representation. I don't think I have added/edited anything controversial, or advertisement like, but I guess any new and less frequent wikipedia user can commit some mistakes (like the one you referred to about signature, and I think that comics edit reversion was unjust, given this is a nice comic if one were to take pain to visit the website, and were to understand some biology research, but you may have noticed that I did not contest even then). These couple of mistakes can be edited out by even some 18 something editors (like you, I guess :-). So, on the balance, I think I have done a pretty good job in bringing this article up to speed. Once the foundation has been created, others are more apt to contribute. If you don't like my occasional working on it, let me know and I will move on!! Peace.

PS: I again read the SPA article that you have referred to, and it seems to me I have not done anything disruptive, only constructive; and I don't see why I am seen as advertising this website, when that is the only one I am interested in working on, so naturally, most (not all, as you pointed out, there is one on onion, my favorite :-) of my edits would be on this topic. I don't intend to be full time or significant time wikipedia contributor, and I guess that should be okay with wikipedia. Not everyone can be full-timer, and that should not preclude them from being able to contribute.

Regisbates (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right, that clears everything up. I am sorry for ever accusing you. I hope no harm was done. •ː• 3ICE •ː• 13:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Removed Notability|date=March 2009 note on VADLO page on 3-12-09. -- I looked up "Wikipedia:Reliable sources" article, and it seems to me that the following section grants notability to the Vadlo article..

"Usage by other sources How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them."

I have checked the vadlo reference page [4] very carefully, and followed most of the links, and it appears that close to a hundred academic institutions of high profile/reliable sources list VADLO in their resources link pages. I stand corrected.

Regisbates (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Regisbates (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Regisbates (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of VADLO

The article VADLO has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Minor search engine, insufficient 3rd party references for 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]