Hello, Sabgold. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Goldbach conjecture, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

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.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia: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.

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. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sabgold, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place ((help me)) before the question. Again, welcome! D.Lazard (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lazard,I'd like to send you the abstract and conclusions of the paper to be reviewed by you. Also, I should mention that I myself completed a Ph.D. in mathematics (number theory) under supervision of Prof. David Rohrlich in 1996. My Ph.D. dissertation is on the Goldbach conjecture by title: A proposal proof for Goldbach's conjecture. I have discussed it with many mathematicians expert in number theory and then after about 14 years I could finally publish it in a journal. Therefore, this paper has passed a long period of discussing as well as explanations given at the above paragraph. Also, I have given many lectures in mathematics and number theory as a professor in some universities. Hence, you should trust to my paper to be cited in Wikipedia. Please kindly let me so I cite it in Goldbach' conjecture Wikipedia's page. A citation of it, may help to excite people to track and propagate it worldwide. Such a paper of many volume of data and new ideas is rarely published. Also, I have looked at some Wikipedia's pages and found some articles, which cited in it but none published anywhere. For example in arXiv:math. But my paper has been published and indexed. Also, anybody haven't reported problem or conflict with.--Sabgold (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Post copied from Talk:Goldbach's conjecture --D.Lazard (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

It appears from your post that you have not well understood the principles of Wikipedia. This is the reason that I have inserted the standard welcome message, which contains relevant links about them. Nevertheless, I list below the main points which reveals your misunderstanding.

• It is not the task of WP editors to review research paper (nor any other paper) nor to give their personal opinion about a paper. Such a personal opinion is qualified by Wikipedia of personal resarch and is strictly prohibed. Thus it is nor useful that I read your paper.
• The preceding point implies that the opinion that a paper is sufficiently important to be cited in Wikipedia, has to be sourced by comments or citations external to Wikipedia and distinct from the author (see WP:SECONDARY)
• If an article is too recent to have secondary sources allowing to estimate its importance, this means that we must wait to mention it in WP (see WP:CRYSTAL).
• You wrote "A citation of it, may help to excite people to track and propagate it worldwide." This means that you think of WP as a mean of advertising. This is wrong, see WP:SOAP
• "Also, I have looked at some Wikipedia's pages and found some articles, which cited in it but none published anywhere." There are many things that have been inserted in WP that should not and that have not yet been removed, in particular in the external links. This is not a reason to add more.
• Citing own's article is not absolutely forbidden in Wikipedia, but is possible only in exceptional cases. In your case it is clearly a conflict of interest (see WP:COI)

For more details about what is worth to be included and what is not, see:

• WP:core content policies, in particular WP:Neutral point of view, WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research
• WP:What Wikipedia is not cited several times above.

Nevertheless, you could be very useful to Wikipedia by improving the articles on which you are an expert, and including in them important results by other people, which are omitted or badly presented.

Sincerely --D.Lazard (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]