User talk:Chrisdecorte

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

Please stop proposing that your self-published papers be used to support information to be included in Wikipedia articles. Please read WP:NOR and WP:SPS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisdecorte, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Chrisdecorte! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Technical 13 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions

Hello Chris. I note that while you've been editing Wikipedia since last July, to date all but one of your edits have been to promote or discuss your own work in mathematics. In case you are not aware, Wikipedia is a collaboratively edited encyclopedia, not a free web host for publishing one's own original research. While we are granted some latitude regarding the content of our user pages, it is expected that we do not make them the primary focus of our editing here. I would ask that you review Wikipedia:User pages and Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia, which document our community consensus on collaborative behaviour here (or lack thereof) and use of user pages. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been continuing to discuss and promote your own work, to the exclusion of almost all other editing. I have reverted your most recent changes to Talk:Proof of the Euler product formula for the Riemann zeta function. If you continue to use Wikipedia as a free web host to publish and discuss your mathematical theories, I will bring this to the attention of the wider community, and I suspect the result will be that your editing privileges here will be revoked. If on the other hand you are interested in actually contributing to the writing and maintenance of this encyclopedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Introduction and Help:Getting started. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Self-promotion

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:RSA Factoring Challenge. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. -- intgr [talk] 08:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry but adding something useful to Wikipedia is almost impossible since most of the subjects have already been maintained by professors. I understand that you prefer to write about dead people in stead of living ones. I can no longer stand your aggressive behaviour towards me. Therefore, you are allowed to delete all posts related to me.

Chrisdecorte

Hi Chris. It's not about whether subjects are alive or dead, it's about whether their work has been accepted by mainstream academia, published in peer-reviews publications, and/or discussed in depth by reliable sources. That's not just Wikipedia, it's the way encyclopedias work in general. An encyclopedia is not a suitable outlet for writing about new research and new developments; that's what academic journals are for. Should you get your work accepted and published by mainstream academia, it might then be suitable for coverage in Wikipedia. I suggest you have a read of WP:OR. WP:N and WP:RS, which explain the relevant policies. Squinge (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]