User talk:Esenzia

Hello! I've responded to your comments on the AfD, and thought I might try to explain some things further here. I've been moving your comments to the talk page of the AfD because, as I explained there, the merits of the theory don't really matter to the AfD, since Wikipedia has its own esoteric definition of "notability". You might want to read that, along with the other important policy pages (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and some others) in order to get a better view of how Wikipedia works. I am also nearly certain that those pages exist in a language which would would prefer over English - if you look on the bottom left hand corner of the pages, in the sidebar, there should be a list of other languages. At this stage, Wikipedia simply isn't the right place for the theory, regardless of its merit. There are many parts of String theory which aren't here either.

Also, I would encourage you to look into formatting for your text. Unfortunately, I don't know of any good introduction to formatting oriented around talk page like formats (the AfD is in that sort of format). I explained a bit of it on the AfD; the signing with ~ is the most important part, and the indenting makes it much easier for other editors to understand what is going on. How_to_edit_a_page is somewhat useful in this regard. --Philosophus T 09:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, sorry for not responding earlier, but I'm very busy right now with some grant proposals; I will probably not be able to give you the respectable response that you deserve until Tuesday. --Philosophus T 23:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I really must apologize for not responding - as you can see from my user contributions, I've hardly edited at all since I told you I would respond later. I'm terribly overworked right now, but if I wait until I have time, I probably will never respond to you. The issue with including an article on the theory wasn't so much the quality of the English or even the quality of the article, but instead the notability of the subject, which on Wikipedia really means the level of worldwide attention and publishing on the subject. This means that we don't really have articles on groundbreaking new theories, no matter how good they might be. We don't, in other words, make articles on new theories until the research has solidified into something that has been widely cataloged by others, especially people not doing research in the specific field. Thus we don't, for example, have an article on Stephen Hawking's newest theory as of two months ago (that the Universe has always been below the Planck scale, etc.). The AfD basically meant that we don't think Unification Theory is there yet; it doesn't yet have the outside attention that is necessary to make a good article here. Wikipedia isn't really designed to promote new theories, or for people to suddenly find out about something they hadn't heard of, it is more for people to look up something they have heard of, but want to know more about. If you put an article on something no one has yet heard of on Wikipedia, no one will hear of it, since very few readers will ever get to the article if they don't search for it, which requires that they already know of the theory's existence. Articles with low readership on Wikipedia are a problem, because low readership generally means a low amount of editing, which generally translates into a poorly maintained article.


 * If you want an article about the theory in Wikipedia, the best thing to do would be to promote the theory outside of its current researchers. Promote it to the general scientific community, and to the media, and so on. With publicity, and outside references, you won't need to work hard on an article, since other editors will be able to use those references to improve the article for you. And with that publicity, people will actually go to the article, and it will be maintained. --Philosophus T 07:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)