User talk:Wdlang

Ok, i cannot prove it. I give up. But just try to find a simpler derivation of fermi's golden rule in the literature for me.

How are your results any better or more significant than other bodies of literature? It's not a question of how much value your work has, but how it compares to other results. You are simply inserting the results of your papers into various articles, and they are not of enough general interest or teaching value. A thousand other equivalent results and uses could be substituted in place of your edits. Crucially, no one has vetted your claims. It is just self promotion.108.240.250.26 (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I do believe my results are of pedagogical value. But how should I prove that? I believe I understand the topics on which I have publications very well. But how should I prove that? I do not know whether the editors of Wiki know physics. If some of them do know physics, I invite them to have a look of my paper. Of course, this is too much work for them, possibly. Anyway, I do believe my paper can help undergraduate students understand what 'Fermi golden rule' is.

So how can you claim that your results are any more notable or pedagogical from the entire body of published work? A wikipedia article should include the most instructive and simple examples, but if you only select from work you are familiar with, you are not doing yourself or readers a service at all. 129.105.14.155 (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I only edit terms which I really have some knowledge, some knowledge I gained personally from my research, which I believe it is not well known enough. Of course they are related to my publications. It might sound cocky, but I really believe readers will find them helpful. Anyway, I do not dare to edit wiki anymore. I will just be a reader. I am confused with the editing policy.

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Wdlang. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * 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.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

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. Second Quantization (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Long story short, don't use wikipedia to promote your papers, Second Quantization (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)