User talk:Luca-Spinor-Torsion

Your submission at Articles for creation: Polar form of the Dirac equation has been accepted

Polar form of the Dirac equation, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Polar form of the Dirac equation

Thanks for creating Polar form of the Dirac equation.

A New Page Patroller Rosguill just tagged the page as having some issues to fix, and wrote this note for you:

I suspect that this article should be merged with the existing article on Dirac fields.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can reply over here and ping me. Or, for broader editing help, you can talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Rosguill:

Hi, and thanks for the suggestion. I have two points to make: 1. the page you suggested is on the Dirac field, but in the page I created I talk about the Dirac equation, so the page I created should be merged with the page Dirac equation; however, 2. the place where it should be merged is on a box talking about alternative forms of the Dirac equation, all of which just being simple mentions and linking to an independent page. Therefore, to stay in line with that spirit, I wrote an independent page.

To merge this with that page would require merging also the others, and this is a task I am not qualified to do. To merge it with Dirac fields would simply be not properly adapted.

Still, very many thanks for taking the time to make improvements.

Luca (Luca-Spinor-Torsion (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC))

December 2020

Hello, Luca-Spinor-Torsion. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. XOR'easter (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and many thanks for the explanation! It is indeed true that I am the author of the references I added, but there was no intent of publicizing those references, only to use them to support what I wrote, and make clear everything was well accepted by peer-review systems. Then, in what I wrote I limited my self-influence by sticking to the actual facts. I honestly do not think that those two additions were increasing my visibility in any way. However, they were completing the information found there.

For example, in the page talking about the de Broglie-Bohm theory, in the section "Derivation", it was claim that such a derivation could be done in absence of spin, and this is not true: it can be done also in presence of spin. The only problem I might see is that the results are not old, but I have already seen Wikipedia pages about recent results and thus I do not think I was infringing any rule there.

So, I understand if the modifications are not accepted, but I do not think quite frankly that they would have been seen as self-promotion: they were a due completion of what was already written, supported by peer-reviewed work.

Would this change anything, or those modifications are still not permitted?

And if they are still not permitted, may I ask what can be done to allow them?

Thanks for your reply, Luca