Talk:Society for Mathematical Biology

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --MLauba (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not if permission is granted by the copyright owner (SMB) for the partial use of SMB information as specified in version 4 of the corrected Wikipedia entry.
 * Thus history and versions 5 and up of this entry should not be deleted. Bci2Nu 00:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, this is curently not a stub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bci2 (talk • contribs)
 * Permission grants need to be done according to these guidelines. As for the currently not a stub, I agree, it is currently an indiscriminate collection of links with a tiny bit of substance. It is also clearly lacking in third-party reliable sources in sufficient numbers to allow for a proper neutral and verifiable article, in other words, a deletion candidate. I suggest addressing these with a higher urgency than building the complete and exhaustive list of topics clearly related to the field of mathematical biology, but a lot more tenuously, to the Society for mathematical biology. MLauba (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Other issues

 * I believe that your postings in this discussion seem to have repeatedly violated the NVOP policy of Wikipedia, and thus your suggestions may be unacceptable both to Wikipedia and Wikipedia readers. Furthermore, none of the links for this entry are "indiscriminate" as you suggested above because: {1} they refer to prominent members of the organization involved, and/or (2) are consistent with the SMB past and present members' interests, as well as their research interests, and also consistent with the external links officially provided by SMB. Your suggestion about deletion of an entry (that is the SMB entry here) --that you have yourself previously tried to re-"appropriate" by posting only one sentence-- is not only internally inconsistent, but it does indeed point out to a personal, possibly hostile bias of some sort that would indeed violate on your part the NVOP policy of Wikipedia website, so at this point it would seem that you are not posting issues of substance but of a personal nature, which seem to be not only over-stated but also over-inflated; possibly beginning some kind of "vendetta" for merely personal egotistic reasons would not seem to be appropriate either. Best wishes.Bci2Nu 06:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Bci2
 * Your accusations are a stunning breach of WP:AGF and have no foundation in reality. I demand that you retract the above statements. MLauba (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Since communication on this article appears difficult, I have requested mediation here. MLauba (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Am re-iterating here the facts already presented in this discussion, and also verifiable from the history of this posting:

(1) The links that I made in the current version of this entry are quite legitimate/ related to the substance of the entry, and not "indiscriminate" as you have chosen to incorrectly state; unless you'd be willing to retract that statement there is a factual basis for the possibilities that I raised--not "accusations" that I would have previously 'made'-- as you claimed in the above posting: ***I made no accusations here, or elsewhere**-- I have merely raised the **possibility**, based on your factually incorrect statements about the current contents and links of the present version of this entry, that you cannot substantiate any of your claims as you **appear** to lack significant knowledge of the subject matter of this entry, namely Mathematical Biology. (2) You **appear** to have stated in a very lengthy posting at the beginning of this discussion that you intend to transfer this entry to yourself as the main author, and as I indicated to you in my reply such a transfer was clearly unacceptable, as you have made --**in my view**--no major or significant effort to properly develop this entry, but rather the opposite--you ***seem, in my view,*** to have made every effort to annihilate it; (3) Also a fact is that instead of discussing things related to the **substance** of this entry--as it is intended for-- you have chosen instead to impose quite forcefully in your second posting your own terms and conditions for an entry that you did not initiate, and ***seemed*** to have a keen interest to acquire or appropriate by completely erasing the history of this entry, only to propose afterwards its deletion when you found that your strategy did not seem to work out. These are the facts. I cannot retract facts. Maybe you can ? (4) Last but not least, the `difficulty in communicating' is mainly one-sided, as it ***seems*** --based on what you have posted here so far-- that your **current** intent is either to take over the entry or push for its deletion--none of which is acceptable; there is no ambiguity about your intentions from what you have posted so far. (The stars ** were added here only for the sole purpose of emphasis, thus hopefully helping communication.) Bci2 (talk )
 * If I may have indeed misunderstood your intentions as discussed above based on facts, I would appreciate some verifiable, factual evidence from you to that effect. Best wishes and good luck (with deleting other entries ?).

Bci2 (talk)
 * Please review WP:AGF as well as WP:OWN. The copyright issue must be addressed and as long as there is no permission, it has to, at the very least, disappear from the article history. I would have been entirely within both policy and practice to simply nominate the article for speedy deletion as a copyright violation, which I could have done if I were, as you seem to imply I was out to delete the article. I have, on the contrary, gone out of my way to ensure the article could be kept and expanded upon. The rest of your interpretations and views are entirely your own and cannot be substantiated. That being said, despite my reservations about the article's evolution, consider myself disengaged from this article, safe for the copyright issue. I'll let mediation handle the rest. MLauba (talk) 09:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am prepared to take your latest response at its face value, although I have not seen so far any evidence whatsoever that you have contributed even by adding a comma to the actual expansion of this entry--as it was claimed above to be your intention-- beyond its first sentence. Furthermore, your comments were in two postings ago severely berating the contents of this SMB entry versions 7 to 14, etc., without any foundation, but again this may have arisen more from your **apparent, or possible**, lack of either specific or general knowledge in Mathematical Biology rather than from other possible motives. That is also a fact, not my views or interpretation. Hopefully, the links to the entry that I provided and reordered/restyled so that such links are more accessible to the layman may allow you to reconsider and retract your previously berating and scathing comments about such links.  Also appreciate your concern about the potential copyright issues that should be soon completely resolved without either changing history or retracting any facts.

Best wishes.Bci2 (talk)