User talk:Spirographer

Welcome!
Hello, Spirographer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Approximations of π and List of formulae involving π did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to  The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Introduction tutorial
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. - DVdm (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your help. This is original work that has not appeared in print anywhere. I will produce a research paper to publish it first. Spirographer (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that won't work . Wikipedia needs wp:secondary sources. So you need to publish, and then some other established, relevant authors must refer to your publications — in the relevant literature. That would establish whether the content is relevant and noteworthy to begin with. Wikipedia is not the place for us to bring our own work. Hope this helps. - DVdm (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Understood. This material is of interest and derivable from the existing literature.  It just hasn't been done before.  I am not introducing personal work or biases, just math truths. Spirographer (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, math truths, but, except under the above explained circumstances, not allowed in Wikipedia, alas. - DVdm (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

On a separate topic, I'd like to track down the reference for the equations I expanded on in" List of Formulae Involving Pi", since I've only seen them on Wikipedia. Neither of the two other citations in that section refer to them. Much appreciated if you know, or can figure it out. Spirographer (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Please indent your talk page messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
 * Perhaps that content just wasn't noticed before, or it was discussed on the article talk page and got accepted through wp:consensus. In any case, unsourced claims in articles are no invitation to add even more unsourced content — see wp:otherstuffexists. You can ask on the article talk page. You can also tag the content with a citation needed template. Good luck! - DVdm (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I truly intended my last comment to be a top level comment, as evidenced by the words "On a separate topic". I am very appreciative of your willingness to introduce me to proper Wikipedia etiquette, since I am a very infrequent contributor. I am really confused by your use of the words "claims" as regards Mathematics articles. The formulae listed in the page are true, and are verifiable by anyone trained in mathematics, which I myself did.  In verifying those formulae I learned some new facts (not claims) which I feel are important to share with the community.  I followed the path of least resistance, and added the new facts to the page, which I understood to be the modus operandi for wikipedia. You have corrected my mistaken belief about how wikipedia works, but I am troubled that there is a blanket policy of retracting edits regardless of verifiability, and sourcing. I understand that you need to provide quality control, but should it be so draconian that it ends up preventing the dissemination of information? Spirographer (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It is very simple: Wikipedia does not allow original research — see the policy No original research. So unpublished information, facts, claims and truths — and published information, facts, claims and truths that are nowhere mentioned in the relevant literature — are not alowed here, bu design. This is an encyplodia, not a textbook — see wp:NOTTEXTBOOK. Look, I can take my calculator and calculate the sum of 646846146464 and 89798476464646. I can publish that. Nobody will mention it in the literature. Yes, it is verifiable by anyone trained in using a calculator, but if it is not mentioned in the literature, it will not be taken on board in Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I got off to a poor start with you, and I have the impression you are trying to shut me down, rather than helping me to find a constructive way to make progress with my wikipedia edits. You know the difference between my edits and the sum of two numbers, and you know that there are many wikipedia guidelines including wp:consensus which you cited earlier which could be invoked to include my edits. You are choosing to take a stance as an editor, and I respect that, but please understand that your stance is subjective, and that is why I'm trying to continue to figure out how to make progress on the topic. Spirographer (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to shut you down . I am merely trying to explain that —and why— your original research will not be accepted by the Wikipedia community without either (1) it having been mentioned in the relevant literature, or (2) it having been approved through consensus in an article talk page discussion. - DVdm (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I definitely appreciate your patience and willingness to engage. It's not an easy trait to maintain these days.  I've reached out to friends about writing a paper on the subject with me (I have fair amount of published and referenced research already) and I'll go from there.  It's definitely worth getting this material out there!  Have a happy holiday season. Spirographer (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Likewise, and above all, keep it As Safe As Possible! - DVdm (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)