User talk:Frankkfong

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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

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)[reply]

January 2011

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)[reply]

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:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

ANI-notice

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)[reply]

Dispute resolution

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)[reply]

The Legal Threat issue

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)[reply]

Reply to Editing User DVdm's Response to Message from Frankkfong

(Moved with italicised and parenthesised signatures from my talk page to here. DVdm (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

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))[reply]

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))[reply]

Please note that the article Calvin cycle is not my article. Wikipedia has no article ownership (see wp:OWN). I had never seen the article before, I don't know what it is about, and don't intend to find out. If you think that you have something to add to the article, then, as I said before, the way to go is to propose it on the article's talk page first, to see what the other contributors think about it and to reach a consensus (see wp:consensus). You don't have to work with me, but with the other contributors of the article. I was merely trying to make you aware of our basic policies. By the way, if Calvin and you were the "creators of the works", then perhaps (or maybe probably) neither one of you should be writing about it here. Good luck on the article talk page. (DVdm (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I quote verbatim your writing in your response of Jan. 2, 2010 above: "If you would like to add some content to an article like you did to Calvin cycle, and which is subsequently questioned, the way to go is to propose it on the article's talk page first, to see what the other contributors think about it and to reach a consensus." Please explain to me - what you meant by the "subsequent question" on my addition - if you know nothing about the Calvin cycle and "don't intend to find out"?. You removed the 56 years of omitted references to Calvin's and my original work, and now state the article on Calvin cycle is not yours? If the article is not yours, and you don't understand it, why did you remove the essential references? Who are the individuals other than you that would not give "consensus" to my filling in the omitted references? What do you mean, if Calvin and I are the creators of the original work, neither he nor I should be writing about it here? So you can change what we discovered in the laboratories to mislead your readers? To defruad the U.S. Treasury and violate the Internal Revenue Code? [By the way, Calvin has been dead for some years.] Whatever your policies are at Wikipedia, I am sure Mr. Wales did not intend to have one for misrepresenting Calvin's and my original findings of the photoreductive carboxylation reaction in photosynthesis.

This has nothing to do with whether or not you wrote the article. What does your having ownership interests in it, or not, have anything to do with this discussion? You removed the essential references and changed the content of the corrected article to mislead your readers. You are therefore responsible for the underlying fraud issues. Accordingly, I request that you get Mr. Wales involved in this discussion.

(Frankkfong (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I objected to your adding your own work (see wp:No original research#Citing oneself.) as a possible conflict of interest (see wp:Conflict of interest). I also advise you to have a close look at the Wikipedia policies - see the blue links in the welcome message on your talk page (specially The five pillars of Wikipedia) and the many other policies and guidelines you were pointed to. Good luck. (DVdm (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

According to the wp policy you cited, my own work is not only permitted, it is encouraged. wp:No original research#Citing oneself reads in its entirety:

"If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality and conflict of interest policies. If you are able to discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a discovery. This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. In fact, expert input is encouraged and experts often have specific knowledge of the relevant literature. However, as with all editors, this policy does prohibit experts from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing reliable sources. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest."

Pursuant to the foregoing,

I published the results of my research discoveries in reliable publications; I cited those sources while writing in the third person; I did not use Wikipedia to premiere such discoveries; I, the expert, have drawn on my personal knowledge citing reliable sources, the omitted original journal publications by Calvin and myself that appeared during the aforementioned 56-year gap.

My concern is your pretext of using Wikipedia policies to falsify Calvin's and my original discoveries of the photoreductive carboxylation reactioon in photosynthesis to mislead your readers, that photosynthesis occurs in the dark. In the omitted references by you Calvin and I discovered as follows: Photosynthesis does not occur in the dark. The Calvin cycle does not exist in photosynthesis.

Further, even while I have answered each and every one of your objections, you have altogether avoided answering my inquiries outlined above at 21:28, 3 January 2011. Therefore, I shall anticipate your arranging for us a discussion with Mr. Wales of the underlying fraud issues.

Respectfully submitted,

(Frankkfong (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Dear Mr. Editing User DVdm,

I await your response to the above message of 23:37, 3 January 2011. By your silence, I conclude, preliminarily at least, that you agree that my own work is not only permitted but also encouraged. See, wp:No original research#Citing oneself.

In want of a purported "subsequent question" to my edits, you then used a pretext of Wikipedia policies to interfere with my edits. Potentially more serious, you having hereinabove conceded that Calvin and I are the "creators of the works," I am the reliable source for all things having to do with the Calvin cycle. See, The Calvin Cycle Website. Therefore, by removing the added 56 years of reliable sources, you took cover under Wikipedia's policy matters in furtherance of the deceptive Wikipedia page, Calvin cycle, to violate Section 371 of the U.S. Criminal Code, a general conspiracy statute used by the United States to prosecute tax-related criminal conspiracies. Accordingly I shall anticipate, first, your answer to the above message of 21:28, 3 January 2011 (e.g., why Calvin and I being "the creators of the works" should not contribute to Wikipedia's Calvin Cycle page), and, second, further discussion with Mr. Wales of the underlying fraud issues.

Respectfully submitted,

Francis K. Fong

Chief Science Officer

NSFfunding.com

and

Professor of Chemistry

Purdue University

(Frankkfong (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Prof. Fong:

"Reliable source" in Wikipedia jargon means a published source like a scientific journal article (for scientific info) or a published secondary source (about historical info documented by primary sources). Is there something like that which we can cite? It would make this issue a lot easier. See WP:RS for our reliable source guidelines. WP is a tertiary source which means it's supposed to be based on secondary sources. We really can't go by firsthand accounts even from principal parties (those would be considered primary sources) in articles, though of course they can be helpful on talk pages.
In general, keep in mind that Wikipedia policy documents like WP:RS are precisely that, documents, not statutes or regulations. They document, that is they describe, not prescribe, Wikipedia editing practices that have developed through countless discussions, something like the way English grammar manuals describe English. They are often in conflict with each other, a lot of time they are wrong, and how to apply them to any particular situation is a matter of experience and judgment which you can only get by editing here for a long time. Trying to interpret them legalistically, as you're doing, is called wikilawyering. It's an error many new editors make; it's frowned upon and it doesn't usually produce the outcome you're hoping for.
Based on a little bit of web searching I see that the history of your work with photosynthesis is very complicated and interesting, and I agree we ought to have something about it if we don't (I haven't read any of the disputed articles yet but will try to do so later. I mostly edit computer articles and don't know much about biology). However, the COI issues related to your editing the articles yourself are significant. You have to be very careful about citing yourself, e.g. you can cite your own article but you really can't add any interpretation beyond what the cited article (as published in some scientific journal after peer review) actually says. As DVdm says, it's far preferable to just make suggestions on the talk page.
Since you're citing legal statutes, please be aware of WP's very strictly enforced WP:NLT policy.
I don't think DVdm or anyone else can arrange a discussion with Jimbo Wales. If you want to contact Jimbo, the simplest way is leave a note on his talk page, User talk:Jimbo Wales. All DVdm or I could really do would be add something pointing to this current discussion, to supply background. In practice, my guess is Jimbo isn't likely to intervene directly in the content issue, but he might have helpful thoughts or suggestions about the overall situation.

Regards

(67.122.209.190 (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

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))[reply]

Your position on the Calvin Cycle will need to stay out of Wikipedia until there is mention of it in independent, secondary reliable sources, i.e. until other reputable people take note of it. Your own websites, blogs, and scans of old letters are self-published sources and primary sources, and as such we cannot make use of them. Wikipedia documents what is recorded in sources with a reputation for fact-checking, and such sources go with the Calvin Cycle being broadly correct. If our article on the Calvin Cycle is not "true" according to you, that's a pity but not something that is going to change. You need to concentrate on getting your ideas accepted in the published scientific literature; your 1988 article you have been referring to has only been cited a couple of times, once to state that it was one of several "diversions or dead-ends" in this field.[1] Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Fences&Windows 00:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing, including frequent attacks on other editors and implying the possibility of legal action. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{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)[reply]