What is the forum's rule on posting URLs to personal websites?

[pmb_phy]

To whom it may concern

I had decided to stop posting several months ago due to one of the moderators informing me that further references to my website would not be allowed due to forum rules, so I left (unsavory rule for me). Perhaps I was mistaken about this rule. What is the forum rule regarding this and where is it stated?

Here is what I'd like to propose - Leaving here was a very sad decision that I had to make. But not being allowed to post a URL to, say, a derivation I worked out and placed on my website for prosperity is something I'm unable to understand. I could post the derivation here for those very simple and short derivations if I knew Latex to that extent. However space is limited here so some derivations cannot be placed here. Further more some derivations are helped with illustrations which is impractical to post here in my opinion. Especially if there are several images to post. And to do it all over again when the subject comes up again is just a waste of work. I'd rather have it at my website and post the URL. What I could do so that the reader knows the source is to tell them that I had worked it out myself and placed it on a web page at my personal web site. So they can judge the source by knowing me as much as they trust any poster who is posting here. At least with my web pages I can reference sources in which the derivations of math can be found.

Is this exceptable? If not can it be changed so that it is acceptable and yet I can still post a URL to a derivation?

I'd rather come back here and do that than remain on the sci.physics.relativity newsgroup since its filled with nasty people, quite unlike this place. However I find that I am unable/unwilling to contribute to conversations when I can't refer to work I've already done to explain the topic at hand or be refused to allow me to explain something by doing the work on a web page and then printing the web page.

Thank you for your patience.

Pete

 

[MeJennifer]

The main objection for the moderators to your links, as far as I understand, is that it gives an impression that your thoughts are accepted mainstream opinions.

I suggest you just convert or copy your calculations from your own website. A link to an image is subject to approval, so I suppose if an image is not considered "blasphemous" is should go through as wel.

I at least appreciate your contributions here.

 

[pmb_phy]

The main objection for the moderators to your links ,as far as I understand, is that it gives an impression that your thoughts are accepted mainstream opinions.

Why would me saying "I wrote this web page" be interpreted in that way? And all my posts are mainstream physics anyway, regardless of what others may claim.

Pete

 

[ZapperZ]

Since you decided to rehash this, I will explain exactly why I took that action.

1. You clearly were using material in which you readily admitted to submitting to AJP.

2. By Point 1, this implies that these are either new, or different in approach to existing ideas. If not, why would you submit it to AJP in the first place if it is simply nothing new?

3. You continue to cite your website that INCLUDES these material, which STILL have not been accepted by AJP.

4. You will note that you did this SEVERAL TIMES before I intervened and suggested to you that you should not continue to do this because you were clearly using your AJP material that was still not accepted. It was giving an impression that this is part of something well-established, when in reality, even you considered it to be "new" and that is why you thought it was worthy to be considered for publication.

5. There is nothing to prohibit posting url's as long as they do not violate our Guidelines, and that includes personal theories, be it some new formulation, or "new approach" towards established ideas.

Zz.

 

[pmb_phy]

Since you decided to rehash this, I will explain exactly why I took that action.

No rehash. Trying to find common ground.

1. You clearly were using material in which you readily admitted to submitting to AJP.

2. By Point 1, this implies that these are either new, or different in approach to existing ideas. If not, why would you submit it to AJP in the first place if it is simply nothing new?

The material is historical in nature and its purpose is to remind physicsist of physics that many of them are unaware of. The material represents an effort of letting physicists understand how things came to be how they are. Because an artilce is not does not mean that it represents physics outside the mainstream. E.g. there is an article in a recent AJP article which covers the inertia of stress. The purpose of the article is to remind physicists of little known but very important physics.

3. You continue to cite your website that INCLUDES these material, which STILL have not been accepted by AJP.

I am not trying to get them submitted since they are historical in nature and the AJP does not publish that kind of material

4. You will note that you did this SEVERAL TIMES before I intervened and suggested to you that you should not continue to do this because you were clearly using your AJP material that was still not accepted.

Hence your error, i.e. you assumed that I was still trying to get it published when in fact I stopped trying years ago.

I see that nothing has changed and we can't find common ground so I will copntinue to refrain from posting.

Pete

 

[ZapperZ]

No rehash. Trying to find common ground.

The material is historical in nature and its purpose is to remind physicsist of physics that many of them are unaware of. The material represents an effort of letting physicists understand how things came to be how they are. Because an artilce is not does not mean that it represents physics outside the mainstream. E.g. there is an article in a recent AJP article which covers the inertia of stress. The purpose of the article is to remind physicists of little known but very important physics.
I am not trying to get them submitted since they are historical in nature and the AJP does not publish that kind of material
Hence your error, i.e. you assumed that I was still trying to get it published when in fact I stopped trying years ago.

I see that nothing has changed and we can't find common ground so I will copntinue to refrain from posting.

Pete

.. and I quite agree with that last part, especially when you were clearly "advertising" the fact that you had submitted it to AJP as if you were using that to justify its validity in the first place. Now, you are backtracking in trying to dismiss it as nothing significant. You can't have it both ways.

Either you thought it had some merit in it being "new" and therefore worthy for being considered for AJP, or it shouldn't have been advertised as something approaching that level of significance in the first place. THAT was what I had to go on based on what I saw, and I took your view of it that it had some merit of being "new". Silly me.

Zz.

 

[jtbell]

I am not trying to get them submitted since they are historical in nature and the AJP does not publish that kind of material.
Hence your error, i.e. you assumed that I was still trying to get it published when in fact I stopped trying years ago.

In that case, you should remove the notation "American Journal of Physics Manuscript Number: 17978" at the top of the article, in order to avoid confusion.

 

[pmb_phy]

In that case, you should remove the notation "American Journal of Physics Manuscript Number: 17978" at the top of the article, in order to avoid confusion.

Thanks. I thought I removed that.

Zz - get over it. I left this forum after my last post. Besides, an historical paper cannot, by definition, present nothing new. Oy!

 

[ZapperZ]

Zz - get over it. I left this forum after my last post. Besides, an historical paper cannot, by definition, present nothing new. Oy!

I WAS over it. You're the one who revived this thing and ASKED, remember?

Zz.

 

[pmb_phy]

I WAS over it. You're the one who revived this thing and ASKED, remember?

Zz.

I made a query to determine if there was a middle ground in which the forum and I could both be happy with me posting here with me utilizing my web site. Is that actually impossible?

Tell me something. Is the fact that the mass_paper I wrote had a journal article reference number in it the actual complaint that you had about it? If so then I don't see a problem anymore since I had never intended to place a paper with a journal article in a post. That being the case may I now start posting and also use URLs to my web pages? All the web pages are mainstream physics (i.e. can be found in modern textbooks which I can reference if need be). Had you told me this reason a while back I could have yanked the journal number out.

Pete

 

[pmb_phy]

In that case, you should remove the notation "American Journal of Physics Manuscript Number: 17978" at the top of the article, in order to avoid confusion.

Thank you for pointing out that serious error. The part that you quote has been removed. I am in your debt for catching that. Nobody told me this was a problem and I was under the assumption it was removed. In my own files it has been removed several versions ago. I'm still reworking the paper to make it easier to read. Thank you.

Kind regards

Pete

 

[Moonbear]

This is a specific question on a specific situation. It is best addressed via PM with the mentors involved in the decision, and not to continue hashing about here. Note that the guidelines state that permitting links to personal websites is at the mentor's discretion.