User talk:Bmk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Bmk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you will enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! You can sign your name on talk and voting pages using four tildes, (~~~~), which produces your username, the time, and the date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 23:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humanities Ref Desk Question

About a week ago, there was a question on the humanities Ref Desk about the title of a young adult sci-fi story, and you mentioned that you would ask somebody who should know ... I was just wondering if you'd had a chance to do so, that question is still running around in my head. Thanks. --LarryMac 14:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally forgot about it - now I followed up, and the title of the book I was thinking of was "The Forgotten Door" by Alexander Key. It does fit the description, but i'm not sure if it's the right one. I don't know how to get in contact with Nowimnthing now... I'm new at this, and Nowimnthing doesn't seem to have a talk page. --Bmk 13:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
THAT'S IT!!! I am positive that's the book I read. I left a note on the Ref Desk and on User:Nowimnthing's talk page (just click on his/her name and then on the Discussion tab). Thanks! I'm going to check my local library and relive my youth. --LarryMac 16:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
lol - glad to help. And thanks for telling me how to edit the talk page - in retrospect, it should have been obvious, since at the time I was editing MY talk page :) --Bmk 18:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thakk you

for your answer at the science reference desk.--82.122.182.149 09:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

you're welcome - are you the person who asked about the nuclear power plant? --Bmk 15:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your recent concern

Thank you for your recent concern on my newly created page. I am not much of a diplomat, so I apologize. Even though I have learned that honey gets more bees than vinegar, I sometimes am anything but a diplomat. While you read my comments on the talk page please note the most important point:

I apologize for being so agressive. I deal with these same arguments on a regular basis. Views which are unpopular to the majority of wikipedians are often attacked. I have seen repeatedly the same arguments and same tactics on American Empire and the Philippine-American War. It simply gets really tiring to defend myself from people who have a facade of WP:GF and comprimise but are simply agressively pushing their own POV.

Maybe you are the exception to the rule. I hope so.

There is also another unwritten rule on the internet: never back down when provoked, and never admit you are wrong. I always follow the first rule, but I regularly admit that I am wrong. Maybe you are the exception to the rule. I hope so.

I don't know how to diplomatically word my comments on the talk page. Maybe the subject is too close to my heart, and I have spent way to many hours developing this article. I think a big part of it is that, as I mention above, I get tired of arguing and agressively defending my own POV, against deletions, vandalism, wikipolicy attacks, etc.

I always espouse NPOV, and feel that alternative views actually make the entire article better, and my own POV arguments stronger. See American Empire for one of many excellent examples of this. I will often get in arguments with those who share my own POV because I beleive NPOV is so important. I welcome those alternative views on this page.

I do not welcome attacks on the overall page itself, and this is where I have a difficult time being a diplomat. Expecially when I firmly believe that this is an encycolopedic article, and one of the most well researched pages on wikipedia. Every statment on that page, everyone, is backed up and cited. I pride myself in citing nearly every word I add to wikipedia.

Maybe there was simply confusion about how I cited articles and books. Maybe you felt that the statments I was making were not actually from the authors citied. If so, my apologies for attacking your intentions.

Anyway, as I mentioned on the talk page, the next step is inevitable. If you do not do it, another wikipedian surely will. I hope to avoid this next step as long as possible, but I have no delusions that it will come. I have been editing controversial articles since October 2005, so I know the pattern.

Best wishes. Travb (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Bmk, I appreciate your response. I apologize for my behavior on the talk page. I really, really tried to be diplomatic, but I obiously failed. For this, I apologize. I apologize if my broad generalizations were in fact incorrect.
Please give me some suggestions on how to change this article. I appreciate vicious criticism.
I would not post this article on wikipedia if I didn't want it to change and grow, and become better. Maybe I should move it to another article. I have found that material added to existing articles often whethers partisan fights better, and will not be put up for deletion, if at all. For example, one of my other articles put up for deletion, by a frequent sockpuppet account, got a new lease on life under Election_promise#Richard_Nixon.27s_Election_promises. I was actually thinking that this article would eventurally probably end up in another article. I like it better as a stand alone article, but I figured this would be the final consequences of the inevitable argument.
In regards to my continued edits, you are probably familar with the concept of "dimished returns": It seems like the more time I spend researching this article, the less information I find which I can add to this article. I don't know how much more I can find and research for this article. That is why I want to let others argue these ideas, to make the article better.
Thank you for surprising me, in your courteous and thoughtful reply. I was honestly expecting the worst when I got home from school today. You are a diamond among coals. This is rare. There are few people like this on the net. Travb (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad there are no hard feelings - I appreciate the courage it takes to address such a controversial issue in a community like this, and I am glad you have taken the time to write this impressively cited piece. I have experienced the unpleasant feeling of being surrounded by people who value blind patriotism above free speech, morality, or human rights, as I suspect you have. I will look in at the merge discussion soon - I hope your work finds a good home, either where it is now, or as a part of US foreign policy article. Thanks, --Bmk 05:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
suggested book I just got the book: "Myths America lives by" by Hughes, Richard T, I will pick it up at the library tommorow. "In this book Richard T. Hughes identifies the five key myths that lie at the heart of the American experience--the myths of the Chosen Nation, of Nature's Nation, of the Christian Nation, of the Millennial Nation, and of the Innocent Nation." Should be an interesting read. Travb (talk) 05:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] People's History

I actually have "People's History of the United States" in my car. I love the book. I have one major criticism of Zinn, which I posted here last week: Talk:Howard_Zinn#Out_of_desperation.2C_I_post_my_question_here and which Ward Churchill (the author of "little Eichmann" infamy) addresses eliquently: Talk:Howard_Zinn#Ward_Churchill_addresses_the_issue.

The first real scholarly paper I read of Ward Churchill's was The Trajectory of Political Policing in the United States, 1870 to the Present, located on my geocities page, which gives an excellent history of the Pinkertons. After reading his excellent, typically well researched article:Churchill, Ward (Spring 2005). "The Ghosts of 9-1-1: Reflections on History, Justice and Roosting Chickens". I not only like him as an author better than William Blum, Zinn, or Naom Chomsky, I actually now support his "little Eichmann" statment.

Best wishes. Travb (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Birthday

Yup you got it. Birthday Paradox. Which article do you want reviewed. -Ravedave 02:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] logged out

Is this you making edits while logged out or is the anon forging your name? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah - no, that's really me. I just get tired of re-logging in when my cookies die (or whatever happens), and I just sign it manually. I've been doing it a lot recently. As far as I can tell, they're all mine. Thanks -Bmk 13:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess

You might like to join us at Physics/wip where a total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess. At present we're discussing the lead paragraphs for the new version, and how Physics should be defined. I've posted here because you are on the Physics Project participant list. --MichaelMaggs 08:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/m/k/User_talk%7EBmk_8770.html"