User talk:Marcello Barbieri

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marcello Barbieri (February 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines for academics and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Marcello Barbieri and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Marcello Barbieri, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Code biology

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

Seems to be one writer's umbrella-term WP:NEO. The only sources that appear to mention the concept of "code biology" are Marcello Barbieri's 2003 paper and 2015 book. Code biology's "official website" is run by Barbieri.

While all constructive 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. McGeddon (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Marcello Barbieri. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Code biology, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creating autobiographies

Please do not write or add to an article about yourself. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Code biology for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Code biology 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/Code biology 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. McGeddon (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of Marcello Barbieri page (3 Feb 2016)

Author’s accompanying letter:

The reviewer has specifically asked the author to “… provide more information on what others have said about him”, and to this purpose I have explicitly quoted the comments made by Karl Popper, René Thom and Carl Woese about “The Semantic Theory of Evolution” (1985) and those made by Noam Chomsky and Michael Ghiselin about “The Organic Codes” (2003). Admittedly, those comments appeared on the back-covers of my books, but there is no doubt (I hope) that they were free expressions of those academics.

In order to give the reader more information, I have substantially restructured the page in question, with the result that the word count has raised from 1152 to 2432 words and the references from 12 to 49. It remain true, however, that Code Biology is a field in its infancy and to illustrate this point I have compared it to what electricity was at the time of Isaac Newton and Benjamin Franklin.

Finally I have included, as requested, “an Early Life and Education section stating, among other things, where he obtained his Ph.D.” (the old Italian “Laurea” is not exactly equivalent to a Ph.D. but it was a full academic qualification).

I remain of course willing to address other questions if necessary. Best regards Marcello Barbieri Marcello Barbieri

Revised Code Biology page (8 Feb 2016)

Author’s accompanying letter:

This revised version aims at addressing the points raised by the reviewers.

Reviewer McGeddon has remarked that Code Biology has originated by “Barbieri dismissing biosemiotics as unscientific and forming a splinter society”. In reality the polemics with Biosemiotics was only a secondary accident and for this reason it has been removed from the revised version.

Reviewer McGeddon has also raised the issue of the secondary sources in Code Biology, and I suggest that they are of three kinds: (1) the 12 members of the Code Biology Society (see their websites in External links), (2) the participants in the Code Biology Conferences (see the conference photogalleries in External links); and (3) all those who have published articles on the organic codes that appeared after the genetic code and before the codes of culture (see their papers in References).

Reviewer Dianna has pointed out that the article “appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder”. That impression may be due to the fact that the concepts of Code Biology are bound to be expressed with apparently similar formulations. At any rate, I am the owner of the website www.codebiology.org and I am quite willing to comply with the Wikipedia rules. Please let me know what I have to do, thank you.

This revised version has also been simplified by removing the first section dedicated to the arbitrariness of genetic code, and by starting directly with the discoveries of the other organic codes.

I remain of course willing to address other questions if necessary. Best regards Marcello Barbieri Marcello Barbieri

The discussion about the article is happening at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Code biology - you'd do better to add your thoughts there, than on your talk page. If you can provide links to some papers unrelated to the Code Biology Society that explore the term "code biology", then that may be enough to keep the article. --McGeddon (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

“A paper unrelated to the Code Biology Society that explores the term “code biology” has been published by Evelyn Tavares and Marcos Buckeridge in Plant Science (2015) Vol 241, p. 286-294. In that paper: (1) Code Biology is explicitly mentioned in the Abstract and in the Conclusions, (2) The Introduction begins with the words...”In the new era of Code Biology...”, (3) the forth section of the paper is entitled “Plant cell walls in the context of Code Biology”, and (4) in Acknowledgements only Brazilians institutions are mentioned and there is no mention whatsoever of the Code Biology Society. Marcello Barbieri (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revised Code Biology page (10 Feb 2016) NOTES for the Reviewers:

Notes for Reviewer McGeddon:

[1] The first objection was that Code Biology has originated by “Barbieri dismissing biosemiotics as unscientific and forming a splinter society”. In reality the polemics with Biosemiotics was only a secondary accident and for this reason it has been removed from the last revised version.

[2] The second objection was directed to find out the secondary sources in Code Biology, and the answer is that they are of three kinds: (1) the 12 members of the Code Biology Society (see their websites in External links), (2) the participants in the Code Biology Conferences (see the conference photogalleries in External links); and (3) all those who have published articles on the organic codes that appeared after the genetic code and before the codes of culture (see their papers in References).

Note for Reviewer Diannaa:

I (Marcello Barbieri) am the owner and the copyright holder of the website www.codebiology.org and I declare that in the article “Code Biology” submitted to Wikipedia I have used the material contained in that website only as a source of information, not as a source of content. To my knowledge all sentences have been expressed in new terms. I am willing furthermore to give Wikipedia any license that may be necessary for donating copyrighted material to Wikipedia. Yours faithfully Marcello Barbieri Marcello Barbieri (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the copyright holder and wish to donate the material to Wikipedia under license, please see the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials as to how to get an OTRS ticket in place. There's a sample permission email at WP:consent. — Diannaa (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that donating the copyright will not merely allow your web pages to be used here, but will allow its use anywhere by anyone. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12 February 2016

Code Biology is based on the discoveries of new organic codes that have been published in the past 20 years (all quoted in References). The papers in question (except one) could not mention “Code Biology” because this term was introduced in 2012, but they undoubtedly belong to that research field. The key point is that the above discoveries have circulated only in small circles, and most biologists are still unaware of the fact that many organic codes have appeared on Earth after the genetic code. The proposed article has precisely the purpose to fill this gap and to call attention to the new biological reality that is emerging from the experimental evidence.

As for the license problem, I fully accept that Wikepedia has the copyright of all statements present in the article and that everybody can edit them. I do not accept, however, that people can edit the statements that are present in the website www.codebiology.org . To my knowledge, the two groups of statements have been expressed with different words, and I am prepared to make further changes if necessary. Marcello Barbieri (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Autobio

You continuing to edit the article about you isn't going to lead to the AUTOBIO tag being removed... please remember you don't own that article. It would be better to suggest sources and changes on the talk page; you don't have the distance needed to write about yourself neutrally. You're welcome here, we need more scientific experts, but please contribute to other articles basing your edits on a variety of literature and not just your own work. Fences&Windows 20:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 27 February 2016

In my previous version I have introduced comments by Karl Popper, René Thom and Carl Woese because I was asked to add more citations, but apparently it did not help. I have therefore removed those comments and tried to describe my theoretical work in a more objective way. I have also added, as requested, new categories. With this I have done all I could and if the article is still not satisfactory I can only hope that somebody else may be able to improve it. Thank you. Marcello Barbieri (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]