Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Maonaqua! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Favonian (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Logarithm, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
Maonaqua: I notice that you have tried to add the material again at Logarithm and Natural logarithm. Please read the links provided by Favonian above to understand the issue. The fundamental problem is that new results cannot be published at Wikipedia—after a suitable source has reviewed and published the findings, the material can be considered for inclusion in an article at Wikipedia. If you have a question, please reply here (see WP:TP). Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
Following was posted at my talk and has been copied to here so discussions are not spread over multiple pages. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
I tried to post an approximation to the natural logarithm but it was subsequently rejected on the basis of being too new, essentially. However, just about anyone with appropriate mathematic knowledge can derive the approximation him- or herself. As far as I can tell, that makes the approximation common knowledge and thus not source dependent (you could find hundreds of sources that, when combined, give the appropriate result). To be concise, I am confused by the proposition that the approximation is "too new" or "original research." To me, it is just a synthesis or really old data. Any help?Maonaqua (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
The material was last added to Logarithm in this edit. I suggest that you create a new section on the article talk page (Talk:Logarithm) where you post the material you think should be added to the article. Underneath that, put a comment where you ask why the text has been removed. Start your comment with a colon (the ':' must be at the start of a line with no space before it). That will indent your comment to distinguish it from the proposed text. The essential problem as I see it is that either the material is a new result (and so conflicts with WP:NOR), or, as you suggest above, is common knowledge as an interesting but simple calculation (yet articles cannot include all interesting points). At any rate, please do not reply here because any discussion about the topic should be on the article talk page. Above, I suggest that if you have a question you should reply here, but I meant a question about procedures at Wikipedia (and the primary procedure when reverted is to discuss the matter on the article talk page—click "discussion" at the top of the article for that). Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Logarithm, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)