User talk:65.125.76.157

Replies to your messages to me.Help me!
Please help me with...

Thanks for your explanations about why my link to my website was deleted. I also read your article about not publishing "new" research. My opinion is the following, my website did not contain new research. It contained some interesting ->conclusions or observations<- about the Ulam spiral and relevant facts that just about anybody could have made, and that anybody with some basic common sense can easily follow. Before going further on this topic, I would like to see if you agree with the premise that an article based on conclusions / observations can be published ? Thanks for your help. Derckvan (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * As was explained on your user talk page, original research was only one of the issues with the link you introduced. No, not every "article based on conclusions / observations" can be published (or linked to). Huon (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * By posting your material online, you have, in a sense, already "published" it. Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia, not a platform for linking to or endorsing material that appears elsewhere.  Where appropriate, material that illuminates a topic should be incorporated into the Wikipedia article itself, rather then given as an external link.  I am not suggesting that this necessarily applies to your material.  Some material is too specialized, too lengthy, or too technical for an encyclopedia.  Also Wikipedia articles should only contain information that has been published in reliable sources, which means that self-published material is unsuitable.


 * I do agree that the observations on your website relating to the patterns of numbers non-divisible by 3 on the diagonal lines of the number spiral are relevant and not original research. In particular, they seem to be closely connected with the observations made in the second paragraph of the explanation section of the Wikipedia article.  And I am fairly certain I have run across diagrams like your Figure 1 before.  I can see an argument for using such an image to enhance the explanation, but one should be careful not to unbalance the article.  Also it should be made clear that there is nothing special about the prime 3.  Similar observations apply to other primes.  Other aspects of the material on your website do give me pause: the proposed redefinition of the primes on the last page is one example; points 1 and 2 in the introduction are another.


 * The Ulam spiral has been described in numerous books, articles, lectures, videos, websites, and so on. Millions of people have written code to generate it, and thousands of these have posted the results online.  Wikipedia should not be in the business of selecting a handful of these sites for promotion.  Anyone should be able to find such sites using a search engine, if they wish to.  People keep adding links to their favorite (or their own) sites, and over time the list of links grows longer and longer.  Every few years an editor comes along and deletes them all, but they keep coming back... Will Orrick (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)