Welcome!
Hello, Frankkfong, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
What is " NSFfrunding.com"? -- JWSchmidt ( talk) 14:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page
Calvin cycle has been reverted.
Your edit
here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our
external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s):
http://photochemicaltheoryofphotosynthesis.blogspot.com/2010/04/cordovas-finding-investigation-of-nsf.html,
http://photochemicaltheoryofphotosynthesis.blogspot.com/. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a
media file (e.g. an
image file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's
copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our
upload facility to upload a suitable media file.
If you were trying to insert an
external link that does comply with our
policies and
guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to
undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's
external links guideline for more information, and consult my
list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see
my FAQ page. Thanks! --
XLinkBot (
talk)
14:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things
you have written about in the article
Calvin cycle, you may have a
conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. - DVdm ( talk) 15:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or
synthesis into articles, as you did at
Calvin cycle, you may be
blocked from editing. -
DVdm (
talk)
16:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Fraud accusation and legal threat from user Frankkfong. Thank you. — DVdm ( talk) 11:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed mention of your dispute on the AN/I noticeboard, and thought it might be helpful to you if I were to leave mention of the wikipedia policy regarding what wikipedia views as "legal threats". It is as follows (click through for the policy): Wikipedia:No legal threats. Best.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 13:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I would ask you to clearly and unequivocally retract the legal threat against User:DVdm both at his talk page and at the ANI thread - and also make it clear that you are not going to seek other extra legal kinds of repressalia against the users with whom you are in a dispute (your statement about remitting a user page to the NSF could suggest a form of such). Unless you retract those threats clearly you cannot be allowed to edit and I will have to block you. We can generally sort out this kind of dispute amicably when we stick to the policy of assuming good faith - but this is impossible with pending legal threats. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
(Moved with italicised and parenthesised signatures from my talk page to here. DVdm ( talk) 16:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC))
Dear Mr. Editing User DVdm,
Thank you for your response to the Message from Frankkfong. My initial reaction was that you were unfamiliar with the original development of the Calvin cycle, my work in the photosynthesis field involving Melvin Calvin.
At first sight your article, Calvin Cycle, is a product of deception, an instrument for defrauding Treasury to violate internal revenue statutes. I am the Chief Science Officer of NSFfunding.com. I am authorized by the Executive Division of the Internal Revenue Service to detect and punish the perpetrators who knowingly omitted the 56 years of published papers in the permanent literature - intervening your Ref. (1) Bassham, Benson and Calvin (1950) and Ref. (2), a 2006 monograph by Campbell, Williamson and Heyden.
In this reply, I would first like your advice as to the correctness of my understanding of the words and terms you used, like, "conflict of interest," "original research," "reliable sources," "primary sources," and "secondary sources." I will then work with you on how best to handle the fraud issues and address the question of "consensuses" of other editors and contributors, .
Of concern is conflict of interest (COI) editing. It involves "contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." By original research is meant "material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources." (my emphasis) The term "reliable source" in Wikipedia "has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times)." As for your preference of "secondary sources" over "primary sources," that preference only applies when "all interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."
Please re-examine my contribution ( [1], [2] and [3]). See if you can ascertain that every sentence in the 3 edits was referenced to a "work itself (a document, article, paper, or book)," i.e., a reliable primary source within the meaning of your definitions. Calvin and I were the "creators of the works." Therefore, your preference of "primary sources" over "secondary sources" need not apply here. Calvin and I being the "creators of the the primary sources of work," we are the reliable sources and do not need to make "analyses or synthetic claims about the primary sources" and reference said claims and analyses to "secondary sources."
Thank you for guiding me through the policies for users of Wikipedia. As soon as you correct my misunderstanding, if any, of your terms and policies, I shall anticipate working with you on the substantive issues of fraud.
( Frankkfong ( talk) 19:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC))
P.S. My contribution (of the three edits deleted by you) was published on NSFfunding'com's synopsis site, The Calvin Cycle Website. The same account of Wikipedia's omission of the 56 years of original papers published in "the important research journals from 1900 to the present" also appears on biology-online.org's webpage on Calvin cycle. The substantive issues of intentionally omitting 56 years of material development to mislead the massive audiences of Wikipedia are potentially grave. In the interest of time, I wonder if we can involve Mr. Jimmy Wales at once.
( Frankkfong ( talk) 20:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC))
Prof. Fong:
Regards
Further: this edit has some pretty serious problems. 1) It spends considerable space discussing old versions of the Wikipedia article on the Calvin cycle. We normally don't do that, unless (I could imagine such a situation) some secondary source says it's relevant. Otherwise if there's a problem in the article, we just fix it. So that part should be omitted. 2) The cites to scientific journals are fine but the cite to blogspot is problematic. For something this contentious we really have to use sources whose editorial process is independent of the parties involved. I'll leave the diff on the talk page in the hope that one of the biology editors can update the article appropriately. Or I might try, but not til later in the day at the earliest. ( 67.122.209.190 ( talk) 14:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC))
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
SarekOfVulcan (
talk)
17:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Welcome!
Hello, Frankkfong, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
What is " NSFfrunding.com"? -- JWSchmidt ( talk) 14:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page
Calvin cycle has been reverted.
Your edit
here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our
external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s):
http://photochemicaltheoryofphotosynthesis.blogspot.com/2010/04/cordovas-finding-investigation-of-nsf.html,
http://photochemicaltheoryofphotosynthesis.blogspot.com/. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a
media file (e.g. an
image file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's
copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our
upload facility to upload a suitable media file.
If you were trying to insert an
external link that does comply with our
policies and
guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to
undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's
external links guideline for more information, and consult my
list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see
my FAQ page. Thanks! --
XLinkBot (
talk)
14:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things
you have written about in the article
Calvin cycle, you may have a
conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. - DVdm ( talk) 15:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or
synthesis into articles, as you did at
Calvin cycle, you may be
blocked from editing. -
DVdm (
talk)
16:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Fraud accusation and legal threat from user Frankkfong. Thank you. — DVdm ( talk) 11:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed mention of your dispute on the AN/I noticeboard, and thought it might be helpful to you if I were to leave mention of the wikipedia policy regarding what wikipedia views as "legal threats". It is as follows (click through for the policy): Wikipedia:No legal threats. Best.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 13:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I would ask you to clearly and unequivocally retract the legal threat against User:DVdm both at his talk page and at the ANI thread - and also make it clear that you are not going to seek other extra legal kinds of repressalia against the users with whom you are in a dispute (your statement about remitting a user page to the NSF could suggest a form of such). Unless you retract those threats clearly you cannot be allowed to edit and I will have to block you. We can generally sort out this kind of dispute amicably when we stick to the policy of assuming good faith - but this is impossible with pending legal threats. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
(Moved with italicised and parenthesised signatures from my talk page to here. DVdm ( talk) 16:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC))
Dear Mr. Editing User DVdm,
Thank you for your response to the Message from Frankkfong. My initial reaction was that you were unfamiliar with the original development of the Calvin cycle, my work in the photosynthesis field involving Melvin Calvin.
At first sight your article, Calvin Cycle, is a product of deception, an instrument for defrauding Treasury to violate internal revenue statutes. I am the Chief Science Officer of NSFfunding.com. I am authorized by the Executive Division of the Internal Revenue Service to detect and punish the perpetrators who knowingly omitted the 56 years of published papers in the permanent literature - intervening your Ref. (1) Bassham, Benson and Calvin (1950) and Ref. (2), a 2006 monograph by Campbell, Williamson and Heyden.
In this reply, I would first like your advice as to the correctness of my understanding of the words and terms you used, like, "conflict of interest," "original research," "reliable sources," "primary sources," and "secondary sources." I will then work with you on how best to handle the fraud issues and address the question of "consensuses" of other editors and contributors, .
Of concern is conflict of interest (COI) editing. It involves "contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." By original research is meant "material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources." (my emphasis) The term "reliable source" in Wikipedia "has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times)." As for your preference of "secondary sources" over "primary sources," that preference only applies when "all interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."
Please re-examine my contribution ( [1], [2] and [3]). See if you can ascertain that every sentence in the 3 edits was referenced to a "work itself (a document, article, paper, or book)," i.e., a reliable primary source within the meaning of your definitions. Calvin and I were the "creators of the works." Therefore, your preference of "primary sources" over "secondary sources" need not apply here. Calvin and I being the "creators of the the primary sources of work," we are the reliable sources and do not need to make "analyses or synthetic claims about the primary sources" and reference said claims and analyses to "secondary sources."
Thank you for guiding me through the policies for users of Wikipedia. As soon as you correct my misunderstanding, if any, of your terms and policies, I shall anticipate working with you on the substantive issues of fraud.
( Frankkfong ( talk) 19:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC))
P.S. My contribution (of the three edits deleted by you) was published on NSFfunding'com's synopsis site, The Calvin Cycle Website. The same account of Wikipedia's omission of the 56 years of original papers published in "the important research journals from 1900 to the present" also appears on biology-online.org's webpage on Calvin cycle. The substantive issues of intentionally omitting 56 years of material development to mislead the massive audiences of Wikipedia are potentially grave. In the interest of time, I wonder if we can involve Mr. Jimmy Wales at once.
( Frankkfong ( talk) 20:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC))
Prof. Fong:
Regards
Further: this edit has some pretty serious problems. 1) It spends considerable space discussing old versions of the Wikipedia article on the Calvin cycle. We normally don't do that, unless (I could imagine such a situation) some secondary source says it's relevant. Otherwise if there's a problem in the article, we just fix it. So that part should be omitted. 2) The cites to scientific journals are fine but the cite to blogspot is problematic. For something this contentious we really have to use sources whose editorial process is independent of the parties involved. I'll leave the diff on the talk page in the hope that one of the biology editors can update the article appropriately. Or I might try, but not til later in the day at the earliest. ( 67.122.209.190 ( talk) 14:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC))
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
SarekOfVulcan (
talk)
17:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)