User talk:BalowStar

Please stop spamming articles with links to Boomer Bible. Your link names are offensive and the links themselves are irrelevant. Thank you. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:58, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Plea for Mercy
RE: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Please stop spamming articles with links to Boomer Bible. Your link names are offensive and the links themselves are irrelevant. Thank you. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:58, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) 01:23, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)01:23, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)BalowStar 01:23, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dear jpgordon,

I'm not sure if this is how to respond to your above comment, but I'll write it here and if I find out how else to contact you, I will do so.

The work I am doing is not spam. The entry I am working on is for The Boomer Bible (New York, NY: Workman Publishing, 1991) which is beginning to give folks a good idea of what they can find inside the nearly 850 pages. Over 500 of the books 2000+ chapters are on-line and available for FREE at http://www.BoomerBible.com/chapters.htm.

As the book is written in chapter and verse format, it may be the longest poem written in the English language. As such, it comments upon and synthesizes ideas from a broad range of topics -- from evolution, through histories of various peoples and events, to the modern coming of age of the most influential group of people to ever live in the United States -- The Baby Boomers.

This work is satirical in nature, but it is not pointless nonsense as can be seen by the numerous people who have been discussing the book since it first appeared on the internet in 1997. Please see http://www.BoomerBible.com/Forum/ for the current discussion and http://www.boomerbible.com/Delphi/ for the historical postings from the original Delphi Forum.

A work of this nature is certainly controversial, but the controversy is the work of satire and can lead to new thoughts -- especially about things that we think we know.

My thought was that Wikipedia is certainly an open forum where ideas can be connected across many disciplines and topics. The Boomer Bible has something to say about many -- some would say, all -- of them.

Please reconsider your decision to delete the links to The Boomer Bible. I will await further direction from you and would be happy to discuss this topic with you further.

Thank you for your kind attention.

BalowStar


 * Thanks for replying. A couple of points. First of all, Wikipedia is not an "open forum". It's an encyclopedia. It's not an agora of ideas; it's a compendium of facts. One of our tenets here is a neutral point of view. The article The Boomer Bible is on the "boosterism" side of the equation; it reads like a rave review, not a dispassionate analysis. That in itself is just a reason to edit the article. But the links themselves were offensive, as I said. If it's not obvious, the word "Krauts" in an article about Germany, the word "Spics" in an article about Spainiards, etc. -- those are utterly out of place. I'm sure others will comment on the inappropriateness of spamming dozens of articles with a barely relevant link to your pet project. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:57, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Welcome message
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips a helpful person gave me when I started here. They may be helpful to you --


 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * I recommend you read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Jonathunder 01:41, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).

'The Boomer Bible' vs. 'Boomer bible'
Dear Vsmith,

I only moved the contents for the enty, 'Boomer bible' to an appropriate entry title of, 'The Boomer Bible.' The book being described is, in fact, The Boomer Bible by R. F. Laird, (New York, NY:  Workman Publishing, 1991) and I thought it would be appropriate to have it under the correct title.

There was a link that pointed people that had used 'Boomer bible' to the new destination of 'The Boomer Bible' for the convenience of other users.

Please reconsider your decision to undo my edits.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Regards,

BalowStar
 * (above copied from my talk Vsmith)
 * Hi - you seem to have had a rough start :-)
 * The article Boomer bible was quite adequate as it was, and yes, it was about the R.F. Laird book - I just added bibliographic info to that page and deleted some redundant and commercial external links. If you felt that it was mis-named, the proper edit would have been a move rather than a copy and paste job which just made a near duplicate article and left the article history with the old one. A move moves the article and its history and talk page - important info that needs to go with an article. See the help pages for details.


 * I am in complete agreement with jpgordon and the others who have reverted your various promotional edits. Note: your efforts have been reported on Vandalism in progress. Wikipedia is not for product or website promotion - proceed with caution - explore and learn the Wiki way. And, no I won't reconsider my decision. Vsmith 05:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi, BalowStar --

You'll be interested to know I've added this proposed page move to Wikipedia:Requested_moves. Your comments are welcome there, if you'd like to add them.

Jonathunder 01:29, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Author of "The Boomer Bible"
I am not very familiar with "The Boomer Bible" but it looks interesting. You seem to be quite familiar. Can you point me to a good source of information about the author? Has he written other works? Jonathunder 14:43, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)