User talk:163.1.180.126

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello,

Why did you remove the categories logic and physics homepage? We are going to have video up next week and the page will be very useful for people in the area of mathematical physics, which is a key application of categories.

You need to leave your communications on the editor's talk page User talk:Paul_August where he will see it, not your own where he will probably not. Use the + option at the top to start a new section. You can also re-add your entry and explain in the edit summary and page's discussion page. Also you should sign your comments with 4 ~s.
Triwbe (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
In its current stage the website is not yet very useful, and the chance that you reach the people who you want to reach through this external link is really very low. It is not clear that the link provides a "unique resource" (see the external links guideline). In general, if your edit gets reverted, it is best to discuss the issue on the talk page of the article instead of re-reverting without such discussion (see Bold, revert, discuss cycle).  --Lambiam 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello 163.1.180.126, welcome to Wikipedia. As a project like Wikipedia matures, more and more rules are introduced in order to defend it against people who try to abuse it. Some of them are a nuisance for honest editors, and are often broken innocently by new editors who do not know about them. Linking the "Categories, Logic and Physics" page from mathematical logic looks like a case of advocacy to me, breaking the policy WP:SOAP, because it's relatively irrelevant to the article. (There seems to be nothing on that website that really refers to mathematical logic as covered in the article, although there are connections to topos theory. See Mathematical logic#Subfields_and_scope for the somewhat fuzzy relation. Most logicians are relatively ignorant w.r.t. topos theory.) I even doubt that the website in its current state (and that's what counts) is a sufficiently important source on category theory to be linked from that article. You also seem to be in a conflict of interest. So I think that Paul August was justified to remove the two links.
I have no idea if we currently have adequate coverage of category theory as applied in mathematical physics. If we already have articles on this, then there is no obvious way to find them from either category theory or mathematical physics. You might want to consider helping out in this area. Links to your website may be more adequate from such a more specialised article, but note that I am not saying that they are adequate (because I am not sure -- too inexperienced), and that the conflict of interest would be still there (so it would be best to ask for a consensus on an article talk page before adding the link).
I am sorry that your first contact with the project wasn't more positive. Part of the background of this is that some people misused Wikipedia to increase their sites' Google ranks. This problem became so bad that it had to be solved technically, by instructing Google to ignore all external links from Wikipedia. (While I wrote this reply, Lambiam wrote another one that is much better than mine.) --Hans Adler (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)