User talk:DVdm: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:06, 4 January 2011 edit67.122.209.190 (talk) →Reply to Editing User DVdm's Response to Message from Frankkfong ← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:57, 5 January 2011 edit undoDVdm (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers138,494 edits →Reply to Editing User DVdm's Response to Message from Frankkfong: moved conversation to Frankkfong's talk pageNext edit →
Line 144:		Line 144:
	== Reply to Editing User DVdm's Response to Message from Frankkfong ==		== Reply to Editing User DVdm's Response to Message from Frankkfong ==

			<small>(Moved conversation with italicised and parethesised signatures from here to Frankkfong's talk page)</small>
	Dear Mr. Editing User DVdm,

		⚫	To all involved, please continue at ]. Thank you. - ] (]) 16:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
	Thank you for . 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, , is a , 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 ] (COI) editing. It involves "contributing to Misplaced Pages in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." By ] is meant "material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by '''''reliable sources'''''." (my emphasis) The term ]: 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 must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors."

	Please re-examine my contribution (</nowiki>], </nowiki>] and </nowiki>]). 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 Misplaced Pages. 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.

⚫	] (]) 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 same account of Misplaced Pages's omission of the 56 years of original papers published in "the important research journals from 1900 to the present" also appears on on Calvin cycle. The substantive issues of intentionally omitting 56 years of material development to mislead the massive audiences of Misplaced Pages are potentially grave. In the interest of time, I wonder if we can involve Mr. Jimmy Wales at once.

	] (]) 20:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

	:Please note that the article ] is not ''my'' article. Misplaced Pages has no article ownership (see ]). 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 ] first, to see what the other contributors think about it and to reach a consensus (see ]). 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. ] (]) 20:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

	:: 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? Whatever your policies are at Misplaced Pages, 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.

	::] (]) 21:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

	:::I objected to your adding your own work (see ].) as a possible conflict of interest (see ]). I also advise you to have a close look at the Misplaced Pages policies - see the blue links in the welcome message on your talk page (specially ]) and the many other policies and guidelines you were pointed to. Good luck. ] (]) 22:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

	::::According to the wp policy you cited, my own work is not only permitted, it is encouraged. ] 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, Misplaced Pages is not the place to premiere such a discovery. This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. of the underlying fraud issues.

	::::Respectfully submitted,
	::::] (]) 23:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

	:::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, ].
	:::In want of a purported "'''subsequent question'''" to my edits, you then used a pretext of Misplaced Pages 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, . Therefore, by removing the added 56 years of , you took cover under Misplaced Pages's policy matters in furtherance of the Misplaced Pages page, ], 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 Misplaced Pages's Calvin Cycle page'''), and, second, further discussion with Mr. of the underlying fraud issues.

	:::Respectfully submitted,
	:::Francis K. Fong
	:::Chief Science Officer
	:::
	:::and
	:::Professor of Chemistry
	:::Purdue University

	:::] (]) 07:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

	Prof. Fong:
	#"Reliable source" in Misplaced Pages 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 ] 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 Misplaced Pages policy documents like ] are precisely that, ''documents'', not statutes or regulations. They document, that is they ''describe'', not prescribe, Misplaced Pages 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 ]. 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 ] 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, ]. 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
	:] (]) 13:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

	Further: has some pretty serious problems. 1) It spends considerable space discussing old versions of the Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 14:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:57, 5 January 2011

Welcome to my talk page.

Please leave new comments at the bottom and sign them with tildes (~~~~) at the end? Thanks.
I will respond to your messages on this page.

If I have left a message on your talk page, please respond on your page. I will keep an eye on it.

Archives

2005 - 2006 - 2007 - 2008 - 2009 - 2010

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Tests of GRT

I have been adding a section with a new table 2 to the site http://en.wikipedia.org/Tests_of_general_relativity You have deleted my addition without consulting me. You sited WP:NOR and WP:SYN. Neither apply. The addition is fully cited, and in a reliable source. The calculation of the precession of perhelion invalidates the conclusions that are drawn in table 1, so it leaves the conclusion to be drawn up to the reader.

Please do not remove my written material. I do not remove your material. D c weber (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Please aquaint yourself with wp:NOR and wp:SYN. I have left a third level warning on your talk page. DVdm (talk) 07:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I read the nor site and the material I added was from a reputed Russian scientist and his paper was published on the Cosmology group site for papers. I read the syn and I fail to see where this applies. I only say that the precession of Mercury's orbital parameter of perihelion is very samall and nowhere close to what GRT predicts. Until we get this resolved, I will add a pov header to this page. Not allowing alternate papers that do not agree with the theory of GR is putting a bias to the wiki article. D c weber (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. DVdm,

Here is an response and edited text user talk:D c weber .72.241.181.142 (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Mr. DVdm, Please read the first sentence of the wp:UNDUE that you cited. It specifically mandates "all significant viewpoints". Can we just agree that this viewpoint is needed for this section, so as to comply with NPOV?D c weber (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have left a reply on your talk page. DVdm (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have left a reply on the article talk page. Please stop duplicating your comments on various talk pages. DVdm (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Speed of light FAC

I have nominated speed of light for FAC. As a major contributor, please leave your 2cents on the review page.TimothyRias (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Cubic function and systems of polynomial equations

I totally agree with your last comment on the talk page of cubic function. I agree also to delete the section Alternative solution: It is a verbatim copy of the link named source, without adapting the notation to be coherent with the remainder of the page. Moreover it is not really different of the formula in section general formula for the roots and is mathematically wrong as explained in this section. I could do it myself, but I am not enough accustomed with WP policies to provide the right motive of deletion. D.Lazard (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will collapse ~~two sections~~ a section at Talk:Cubic function, check whether Cubic_function#Alternative_Solution is no copyright violation, add a proper talk page header, and start archiving the talk page. Cheers - DVdm (talk)

Thanks D.Lazard (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen my last comment on my talk page? Cheers D.Lazard (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

USE

Hi DVdm. Thank you for going back and cleaning that up :). I would have done it myself, but doing so would likely have put me dangerously close to violating 3RR. Good job! Happy editing :). -- WikHead (talk) 12:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. See also this tag and this warning. DVdm (talk) 12:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

could you explain me how is this vandalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/Villa_Soldati?diff=401772191 ???! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leghacy of 444 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Just find a reliable source for this edit, and it might be acceptable. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 13:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Reverting

Hi! I noticed you have reverted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=%D0%98%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8C_%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD&action=historysubmit&diff=401988433&oldid=401988380 . What I think happened with the author was that they say the deletion tag so they blanked it to "delete" it themself. Instead of reverting it and warning the user, just tag it with {{db-blanked}} or {{db-g7}} to avoid confusing the editor. Happy editing! --Addihockey10 18:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, good to know - Thanks! DVdm (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete Articles

You may delete the articles that have been scheduled for deletion because I'm getting wrong information that I thought was right, but I didn't know. It's okay if you delete my articles that have been scheduled for deletion. If there's any suggestions about how I should make or edit a Misplaced Pages page, please don't hesitate to leave me a message. I'm new to this and I might need a few pointers. (Lilmizangel (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC))

Talkback Re: Quadratic Equation

Hello, DVdm. You have new messages at 71.41.210.146's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP:3RR

Hi there - just a note to say please be careful not to break the three revert rule. You arguably did so at Progress (Take That album) - your reverts may have been justified, but the other editor's additions were not "blatant vandalism", so 3RR applies. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll keep this in mind. Some of the edits seemed to be vandalism. I stopped reverting and manually removed the unsourced content. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The user you were reverting has been blocked now for 24 hours, we do need to take care but trolling repeated no listening additions against policy such as that do imo become vandalistic in nature when repeatedly replaced without effort at discussion in a warring manner such as that, thanks for you contributions. Off2riorob (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Verifying my references

I am sending you several emails, which will help you verify my references pertaining to my most recent talk page response over at "Time". ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) - DVdm (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Kumbaya

Lets all gather into a circle sing kumbaya and debate the philosophy of our mother earth :) Feast on my Soul (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Message from Frankkfong

Dear Editing User DVdm:

I am using the editing feature on Misplaced Pages for the first time. My attempts to edit the Calvin cycle page were repeatedly reverted. I would like an explanation, if I may.

I read the Misplaced Pages Calvin cycle page, and was struck by the fact that between Refs. 1 and 2, the entire body of Calvin et al's original papers on their finding of the light reaction in photosynthesis were omitted. I.e., Refs. 1 and 2 were the sole sources for the Misplaced Pages presentation of the Calvin cycle.

I inserted the omitted body of original papers by Calvin et al, which refuted the existence of the Calvin cycle in photosynthesis. Apparently these papers were not known to you as Editing User.

I received auto messages stating, first that someone else had edited during the time I was doing my edits and, then, that two of my external links were not allowed. So I removed them all, and re-introduced the edits. Unfortunately, as a result, I received your warning of possibly being blocked for being disruptive.

All of my indicated changes were referenced to reputable journal publications, including Calvin et al's original publications in the permanent literature. I neither intended to be a "vandal," nor "disruptive."

As for another User's (Schmidt?) question, "What is NSFfunding.com," the answer is: NSFfunding.com, a U.S.-based organization under contract with the Internal Revenue Service, is authorized by the United States to detect the use of the Calvin cycle as a means for penetrating the U.S. Treasury. See, The Calvin Cycle Website.

Therefore, I'd appreciate your letting me know why you reverted my edits.

Thanks, Frankkfong (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. After I communicted this talk writeup, I noticed your attribution to me of the headline thing on "Kumbaya." I did not introduce the unsigned "Kumbaya." I am new to all this. Forgive me for having made some inadvertent mistakes, if any.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankkfong (talk • contribs)

Hi, I am sure that your contribution (, , ) does not amount to vandalism. The possibly disruptive nature of your third edit, was that you seemed to ignore the warnings on your talk page and re-inserted the content without further comment. It looks like you might have (1) a conflict of interest, and (2) that you are inserting your own orginal research, some of the cited sources being primary sources, whereas we generally prefer secondary sources. It might be a good idea to carefully read some of the articles to which you were pointed in the messages you received on your talk page: every blue link points to the relevant policy/guideline article. 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. As for the addition of your signature, I did not do that. It was automatically generated by a bot. Please sign all talk messages with four tildes (~~~~), and when opening a new thread on a talk page, please provide a section header, as is explained in the talk page guidelines. I have inserted a header for you. DVdm (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep up the good work!

Petrb has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

S.E. Cupp

I have tried to add a single line to the S.E. Cupp page, but it continues to be removed. I was told it needed a reference, so I provided one. The line was still deleted. The line is not of opinion, but is an honest assessment of her after reading article after article (I can't reference them all) and her book "Losing Our Religion." I would like to know why this is continuously removed. 64.191.172.126 (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The source that you cite is not a wp:reliable source, and I'm sure that the statement you try to add ("she rarely says anything positive about Atheism") does not appear in her book. DVdm (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

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

(Moved conversation with italicised and parethesised signatures from here to Frankkfong's talk page)

To all involved, please continue at User talk:Frankkfong. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)