Matt Hodgson

Welcome!

Hello, Matt Hodgson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Please read Wikipedia:Original research. Deb (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Please try again, this time making the context clear and using independent references. Otherwise I will delete the article. Deb (talk) 12:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I have not deleted the article. If you look at the history, you'll see that your text is still present in the old version. However, the statement that this is "the only published solution to the time-dependent quantum harmonic oscillator with an applied linear electric field" suggests that this is not notable enough for a separate article. Coupled with that, you have a conflict of interest. So I recommend that, if you really want to write about this topic, you just add it as a small section to the main article rather than try to create a separate article. Deb (talk) 12:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I think I understand your point of view, but Wikipedia isn't really the place for world-shattering new ideas, important though they may be; they have to be referenced. There was a time when what you've written would have been acceptable (maybe 12 or so years ago) but the community elected not to go in that direction. You would definitely need additional sources to get this article past an administrator. Even if it escaped detection, it could sit there for years and then be speedily deleted without you even knowing. So better to address the problem right now. I would really suggest you try and find a way to summarize it briefly and put it into the other article as a variant; you can then use the thesis as a reference. Alternatively you could go to Wikipedia:Teahouse and see if anyone comes up with other ideas to help with the issue. Deb (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, you see, the policy is made by the community. To change it, you have to convince a significant proportion of the community. If you are brave enough to tackle that problem, you need to read the guidelines and immerse yourself in the culture. Deb (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Matt, it's not the reference that is the problem (as I tried to explain in my previous comments), it's the lack of other references to back it up. There is nothing to stop you recreating the article at any time and in any words you choose, but please do understand that any administrator could delete it at any time, even if I don't, because it is essentially your own original research and you have not demonstrated the notability of the topic. Deb (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Answer to your question

Not that I recall. Have you checked the article history? Deb (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)