Talk:Luigi di Bella/Archive 1

Books
While copy-editing, I found a very long list of studies, articles, scientific publications under the section title "Books". They obviously are not books. I read other articles about very famous medical scientists (Umberto Veronesi, Luc Montagnier, Robert Gallo) and I did not find any similar section. Now I simply change the title from Books to Studies, but I doubt that the section is ok.--Broletto (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, this is excessive, and I have removed the list. Wikipedia is not a CV. Yobol (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What about a section "Di Bella's pubblications" ?--Robertiki (talk) 09:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are notable publications that are widely discussed in reliable secondary sources, we can discuss those by incorporating them into the text of the article. Wikipedia is not a CV and should not randomly list all their publications. Yobol (talk) 12:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What could you save of the following list ?

--Robertiki (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Di Bella L., Orientamenti fisiologici nella terapia delle emopatie. Bull. Sc. Med. 1974; 145:1–3
 * Di Bella L., Rossi M.T., Scalera G., Perspectives in Pineal Function. Prog. Brain. Res. 1979; 52:475–478
 * Di Bella L., Bruschi C., Gualano L., Melatonin effects on megakaryocyte membrane patch-clamp outward K+ current. Med. Sci. Monit. 2002; 8(12):527–531
 * Di Bella L., Gualano L., Key Aspects of Melatonin Physiology: Thirty Years of Research. Neuro Endocrinol. Lett. 2006; 27(4):425–432
 * Di Bella G., Complete objective response to biological therapy of plurifocal breast carcinoma. Neuro Endocrinol. Lett. 2008; 29(6):857–866
 * Di Bella G., "The DI Bella Method", Neuro Endocrinology letters 2010, Vol.31 Supp, 1, 1-43
 * Di Bella G., "The Di Bella Method (DBM) improved survival, objective response and performance status in a retrospective observational clinical study on 122 cases of breast cancer.", Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2011;32(6):751-62.
 * We can discuss any that have significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. Yobol (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The list is above: pick which would qualify. --Robertiki (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So far, none, unless you've found a source that has significant independent coverage. Yobol (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hard bandage ? What is wrong with "Progress in Brain Research" published by Elsevier B.V. ? Medical Science Monitor of New York ? Neuroendrocrinology Letters - NEL ISSN 0172–780X ? Both Board of Editors look impressive. --Robertiki (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Independent sources need to discuss his sources. We don't just list random sources here. Yobol (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why his published works can't be mentioned: this serves the purpose of the article, relevant and isn't disallowed by any policy or guideline. I would note, that WP:N ("significant, independent coverage in reliable sources") doesn't apply to the content of the article, and the WP:V concerns are addressed with the publisher attributing the di Bella. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Due weight would suggest that only those sources that have been independently mentioned by other sources deserve mention here. We have many, many scientists who have biographies on Wikipedia, we do not list every single journal article, chapter written, book written for all of them.  Wikipedia is not a CV.  I have no problem mentioning significant contributions that have been discussed in independent reliable secondary sources.  I do have a problem with arbitrary lists of all publications. Yobol (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure WP:WEIGHT has something to do with works whose authorship is not disputed — I don't think it makes sense to state that list of works is a major or minor viewpoint, and WP:WEIGHT doesn't extend much beyond POVs. Furthermore, I see encyclopedic value of embedded (possibly collapsed, though it would be IMO excessive) list of published works — these are actually the tracks of the scientific activity, which is the reason of scientist's notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually very much differ from you in this regard. Significant works should be discussed in an encyclopedia article. However, I find nothing encyclopedic about listing every single journal article, letter to the editor, etc. that any particular person has written. We don't list every news article every journalist writes, I see no difference here. I would welcome a wider view of this discussion from the Wikipedia community, and wonder if this topic has not already been discussed elsewhere (I would be surprised if it has not). Yobol (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I would compare scientists and their published works (not letters or notes on toilet paper) to books by writers, not to articles by journalists. Still, I see the point and I'm not sure whether you are right or I am. I tried searching for some policy, guideline or essay on topic, but I found nothing helpful. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Parallel studies
Yobol, could you explain me, why you killed any reference to: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014299912001471 ? I am no physician, so could you explain me why that research is not relevant ? The components look the same, what is the difference ? I am not after vindication or other crusades, I simply saw an interesting study. And any way, if it was really the suggestion of a vindication, is it so important ? And beside, there is not "one" truth, but all facts togheter help a better understanding. --Robertiki (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A discussion about di Bella needs to be sourced to a source that discusses di Bella. Discussing it here when the source doesn't is original research. Yobol (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't agree. Encyclopedia articles focus on all factual information to cover the thing or concept for which the article name stands. When I search an Encyclopedia, I expect to find together all relevant information or at least references or links. What about accuracy, objectivity, impartiality and fairness ? There is always another side of the story. --Robertiki (talk) 11:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What you (or I) believe should be allowed is irrelevant. Mentioning material/sources that doesn't discuss di Bella is not allowed, according to one of Wikipedia's core policies. Yobol (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "irrelevant" ? Are we rude ? Anyway, I can't follow your reasoning. I read: "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. How does the citation of a reliable and published source infringe on the OR prohibition? --Robertiki (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH would be the appropriate section. Adding a source that doesn't discuss di Bella to make or imply a conclusion about his theories is not allowed. Yobol (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait! I did not reach or imply any conclusion! My text was: "After the death of Di Bella, the European Journal of Pharmacology published on 15 April 2012, a study received the 22th July 2011, titled: "Combined effects of melatonin and all-trans retinoic acid and somatostatin on breast cancer cell proliferation and death: Molecular basis for the anti cancer effect of these molecules". No implication and no conclusion. What I thought was: "Those interested, could look deeper at the study to see if it follows some how the Di Bella proposal." --Robertiki (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course you did, by putting in this article. If you didn't mean to imply anything about di Bella, you wouldn't place it here.Yobol (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "conclusion" = termination, final result, proposition deduced from previous ones; what I had is a "indication" = point out, make known, show. I insist: in my words there was no conclusion. Some readers, may be, could hastily reach, one or another conclusion, but the most would do some reaserch, taking the link as a hint.--Robertiki (talk) 09:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You implied it by putting it in this article. If you did not mean to imply a connection to di Bella, you would not have put it in this article. This article is about di Bella. It needs sources that discusses di Bella.  It should not use sources that do not discuss di Bella. Yobol (talk) 12:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * True, I have implied a connection. But non a conclusion. The connection is that the study "recalls" Di Bella's research. But I have reached no conclusion. Connection and conclusion are not the same.--Robertiki (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Semantics aside, implying anything is not allowed. Implying something is WP:OR when the source does not make the implication. Yobol (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Which form should the information have to include http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014299912001471 ? Could you give some examples ?--Robertiki (talk) 10:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That source cannot be used in this article because it doesn't mention di Bella. I'm not sure what part of that you do not understand.Yobol (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How should be a source that discusses di Bella in reference to that research, to gain your approval in this article ? What qualifications should the author have ? Should it be peer-reviewed ? Where should it be published ? --Robertiki (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:MEDRS. Yobol (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it is time to do a Dispute resolution noticeboard/request. Follow up there. --Robertiki (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I came here from WP:DRN, and I'm pretty sure this issue is too humble to go there. See, this article is devoted to di Bella and his contributions; unless the work discuss his contribution, it shouldn't be included here. And even if it does, it should be given due weight. The particular source in question doesn't mention di Bella and his research, so I see no way it could find its way into this article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What I asked is a solution. Example, if one of the following persons: Martina Margheria, Nicola Pacinia, Alessia Tania, Daniele Nosia, Roberta Squeccob, Aida Damaa, Erico Masalac, Fabio Francinib, Sandra Zecchi-Orlandinia, Lucia Formiglia, or maybe a Umberto Veronesi, release a statement to the news, about similarities with the Di Bella research, this statement could it be included here ? If not, what else ? I understand better if given examples and not pages of text with rules to read. --Robertiki (talk) 01:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It depends on the following questions:
 * Does the paper name di Bella or otherwise absolutely unambiguously identify his research?
 * Does the view regarding di Bella's research expressed in the paper belong to the majority viewpoint?
 * If both answers are obviously "yes", the work may be used as source for the article's text. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Alert
Please note that there's an extensive it.wp page on the so-called Di Bella method. Clearly, it's essential for Wikipedia to distinguish between legitimate therapeutic uses of synthesized somatostatin and De Bella's quackery, which had a most unfortunate exposure in Italy, at the expense of patients. I'm going to template the present page for the attention of WikiProject Pseudoscience. —MistyMorn (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The "Studies" section contains a disproportionate and heavily POV section on the deconstruction of the clinic study. The inquiry found no irregularities in the clinic trial, the alleged irregularities were actually suggested by Di Bella himself and were absolutely not harmful for the trial or for the patients. Complete remissions of cancer in patients that were admitted to reimbursement of the cure is stated without any evidence or source. Actually, there are no available evidences of effectiveness of the therapy. --Gcomoretto (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Pubblications
Yobol, I don't understand what is wrong in listing some works of Luigi di Bella. There are other examples like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.P._Udayakumar. And what was wrong with the new external link ?--Robertiki (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh how quickly you forget consensus is against you regarding the list of works. The inclusion of non-notable papers by relatives of di Bella trying to promote this WP:FRINGE cancer treatments are not appropriate.  Wikipedia isn't a collection of links for people to promote quackery. Yobol (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please, be polite (forget what ? It was about "original research", here it is a "Pubblications" insertion). Have you looked the page of S.P._Udayakumar ? Do you agree I should pull off the full Publications section ? And if not, why ? (understanding by example) I could agree that that treatment is quachery, but discrimination and censorship is more dangerous, individuals have no defense against it. --Robertiki (talk) 11:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You were part of a discussion less than a year ago where various uninvolved editors agreed that the publication list at this article is not appropriate. You are welcome to remove that list of publications from other articles if you feel it somehow unfair that other articles have such lists.  However, that does not change that consensus against adding a publication list to this article.   Yobol (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I remember I dropped out of that discussion about "original reasearch", having no time to follow it up and trying to understand what the "consensus" reached at that point. The "list" in that dispute was "collateral", and to understand I need an example, so please, have you looked at the page about S.P._Udayakumar ? If you are uneasy with that page, I could search another page. At first I though to pull out the list in the S.P._Udayakumar page, but I am some what uneasy at doing it. And remember'd the "Di Bella" question. Looking the page, I though "perhaps a "Pubblications" section (which was never there before) could be put in", so I am "dipping the toe" to get a feeling :-) --Robertiki (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Read the link, multiple people agreed the publication list is inappropriate here. If you have a problem with how another page is handled, take it there. I have no interest in discussing another page, if they have an inappropriate publication list, that doesn't make it more appropriate here. Yobol (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We had reached no consensus. And I am afraid you don't understand what consensus is. I am asking you to explain me your point, and proposing you to teach me your position by example. You use words like "unfair", why? Last try.--Robertiki (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Read the link again. No one agreed with you. Yobol (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus . I am willing to reach a consensus. What I read at your link is: Dmitrij D. Czarkoff points to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LINKFARM but asks "Does anybody know any more detailed document on the issue?". Anyway, a list of works done is not link farming. Noleander, after writing "the list of publications is not appropriate for the article" explains: "for persons which are not authors, musicians, & artists, only notable works that are heavily referenced by peers should be listed". In the two first links proposed by Noeleander, thay is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists_of_works of works and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Layout#Works_or_Publications_or_Bibliography I find (today) nothing about if a list is appropriate or not (but the length of what I had to read made me exit the dispute, last year, because of insufficient free time). In the third Neoleander link, that is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Science/Guidelines the only limitation I read is: "Do not include all papers, only major papers and books". And so we are here: where is the "heavily referenced by peers" rule ? How many "references" ? 3, 5, 10 ? And which pubblications ? Is there a list ? And how do you evaluate "heavy reference" without ... original research ? I have done a fast research: is Professor Giuseppe Moruzzi an adeguate peer ? Or Achille Norsa ? How many peer's are needed to qualify ? Have you guidelines in your mind ? Explain, please. Anyway, I though my proposal as simple as possibile. Of what I had understand, but I am not sure, I have found a page that looks to have the same problem. If you confirm me that my understanding is correct, I will modify that other page as the reached consensus. It is not a question of "fairness" but of understanding. If I am wrong, it may be easy for me to understand your point with the explicit example I have proposed you. I would like to remember you that in deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept. And that is my ordinary line of conduct: if in doubt, to "keep". I am asking you to dispel my doubt's with a simple yes or no about deleting the work's list of S.P._Udayakumar. I am not asking you to do it (I will do it and get the responsibility), but only for your opinion, basing on the arguments of the link you repeatedly remember me to read, but of which I am not sure I understand the rule. I am asking you because you look so sure of what is to bee done.--Robertiki (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really care about the Udayakumar page, whether or not it has a list of publications is not relevant here. Multiple editors have stated such a list is not appropriate here, against your sole objection. As there is no consensus to change the article, it will not change. Yobol (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Started dispute page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Luigi_di_Bella --Robertiki (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like a classic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Robertiki already sought dispute resolution and simply seems to be dissatisfied with the outcome. I can understand raising the point again after almost a year, as consensus can change, but clearly it hasn't. Yobol is right, consensus has been reached on this issue. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 03:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * First, a year ago I did not had time to follow all the steps of the dispute, and given up. Second, I ma not sure you have understand what I am asking: please, would you explain with your words what I am disputing "now" so I could see how my question appears about ? Thank you. I am still without a criteria for two articles that seem to me to have the same problem.--Robertiki (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not sure I understand your statement above (I am still without a criteria for two articles that seem to me to have the same problem.), but I am fairly certain I do understand the nature of the dispute you brought to WP:3O. You wish for this list of publications to be included in the article. Yobol's position is that you raised this issue last year, and an RfC found a consensus to exclude those from the article. You'll note that Yobol's opening comments at that RfC sum up the twin disputes under review, the second of which was the inclusion of these publications. As Yobol pointed out earlier in this discussion thread, consensus was reached in the RfC, and that consensus was against including the list of Di Bella's publications in the article, using WP:LINKFARM and MOS:WORKS as guidelines. You recently sought an uninvolved editor's opinion at WP:3O, which is how I became involved. It is my opinion that consensus has been reached on this issue specifically, and whether you agree with that consensus or not, you should acknowledge that there is a consensus to exclude the list of publications. The thing about RfCs is that they don't always go the way you want them to. Some RfCs have gone against my positions, and I just had to accept that I argued my case and people still disagreed. My advice to you is to accept that Wikipedia is not going to include this list of publications and to move on to other improvements (or other articles). Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 02:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that I am already following your advice, but have stumbled on the following article . May I ask your "uninvolved opinion" if I should delete that list of works ? Thank you. Have you read the second part of where another editor has doubts about what is wikipedia policy on the matter ? --Robertiki (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I came here to resolve the most recent dispute between you and Yobol, not to pontificate on what should be done with other articles. I simply found that a consensus had been reached on the issue of listing these publications on this page. Whether another list of publications should be included in another article is a separate matter. If I had to take a guess, I'd say the same rationale may also apply to that list, but that is a matter to settle at Talk:S. P. Udayakumar, not here. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 03:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Robertiki (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Works of the author should/may be listed" ?
Is the policy "for persons which are not authors, musicians, & artists, only notable works that are heavily referenced by peers should be listed" a requirement ? Robertiki (talk) 01:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is good advice. Publishing is what academics do, so they often produce long lists of publications over their careers. Several hundreds is no exception. Most will be completely forgettable, but then there will be some gems that were instrumental in making the researcher notable under WP:PROF (I assume that is the case here, too, otherwise it's no use having this discussion). If some have been the object of a specific award, then that should be mentioned, of course. others may be notable because there are significant sources about those articles (I'm not talking mere citations here, even if there are hundreds of them). The latter is a rather rare event, though. In general, it's advisable to list the three papers that have received the most citations (ideally as seen in Web of Science, but Google Scholar is also acceptable, although often inaccurate). Putting a complete list of works in an article on a scientist is certainly overkill and unencyclopedic, WP is not here to post publication lists. --Randykitty (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is a "policy", I searched for the text and found it at Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 44. It is one editor's opinion about the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which says both that the encyclopedia should try to be consistent, and that consistency is not a compelling argument for any one specific case.  The actual policy is WP:Due weight in WP:NPOV, and also WP:IINFO in WP:NOT.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked through some of the removals in the article. Based on looking at the titles of the publications (including that I don't read Italian), I don't see why anyone would want to see most of those here, as per WP:IINFO.  But removing all of them seems WP:UNDUE, also.  Assuming that a list of the professor's publications exists on a website somewhere, it may only be necessary to provide a link to that page.  But among the removals, I also found that references have been removed, and the entire External references section has been removed.  Here is what I noticed:
 * Di Bella L, Gualano L. Key aspects of melatonin physiology: thirty years of research. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2006; 27(4): 425-432.
 * Luciano Gualano, Homage to Professor Di Bella (2007), Neuroendocrinology Letters; 28(3):219–220
 * The Di Bella Method, Di Bella G., Neuroendocrinology letters, 2010
 * Di Bella G., "The Di Bella Method (DBM) improved survival, objective response and performance status in a retrospective observational clinical study on 122 cases of breast cancer.", Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2011;32(6):751-62.
 * http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/54/2/110 Alternative Cancer Cures: "Unproven" or "Disproven"?
 * Philip Willan, Obituary – Luigi di Bella, The Guardian, 8 July 2003, p. 25.
 * Müllner M., "Bella's therapy: the last word? The evidence would be stronger if the researchers had randomised their studies", BMJ. 1999 Jan 23;318(7178):208-9.
 * ==External links==
 * http://www.dibella.it/
 * http://www.metododibella.org/en/mdb/home.do
 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20881933
 * Unscintillating (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Normally we list all the actual books written when there are any and the most important peer-reviewed journal articles. It's not policy, it is however standard practice, and in my opinion the best interpretation of the actual policy, which is NOT CV. I generally select those articles using the citation frequency, and write the sentence accordingly. "The individuals most cited articles according to Whatever are:..." Sometimes there is reason to include articles on other bases, and the rationale should be stated: a particular article won a prize, for example, or is cited as being the origin of a particular notable theory, or there is a particular work which is important to the career or to the proof of notability. (for example, I often add the title of the PhD thesis) It's the same as everything in WP we don;t judge importance, we give the evidence by which the reader can judge.
 * In this particular case, I would include all the papers, as they give a good picture of the author's work and importance, & the number is not very large. It's the same principle that in expanding a submitted article on a borderline notable person I list the most notable work, even it is apparently very minor: it permits one to judge. Similarly if a business figure writes a book:I give the library holdings--it lets the reader get some idea of its actual degree of importance.   It is relevant that her case study report on the 122 cases has been cited exactly twice, both by her. (In fact the citations in general are so low that she does not meet WP:PROF--the justification for an article is the public attention)   I'd expand the refs, give links to online versions, and give the no. of citations.   I notice the external links actually gives those links--it is better to list them in the article. Certainly they should not get listed twice.
 * This is an instance of what I think the best general practice in dealing with people far out of the mainstream--report them fully, and the reader will see the evidence.  DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I was called as an RFC volunteer, and it looks like there may be agreement on the comments about this. Overall I think it is a good thing to provide more information than less information provided the information is accurate and has suitable references. Yeah, it's not "policy" per se yet I always think it's good to list someone's works in a biography. BiologistBabe (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

An impression about notability

 * PS: I took a look at this article and my impression si that while the "Di Bella method" may be notable, Di Bella himself probably is not. --Randykitty (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Luigi di Bella. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101206151031/http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/54/2/110 to http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/54/2/110
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101103121904/http://metododibella.org/en/mdb/home.do to http://www.metododibella.org/en/mdb/home.do

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)