I'm a postdoctoral researcher in physics at the university of Houston in Texas. Correspondence can be sent to christianjburnham@@@gmail.com, where of course only one @ symbol should be used. Among my Wikipedia activities I monitor and correct spellings of Feynman with a double n at the end.
Pages I've made a significant contribution to
These are pages that I've made large contributions to - and I watch like a hawk.
- Vic Chesnutt (started) (A nice nice page)
- Daniel Johnston (A nice nice page)
- Penta Water (started) (A fairly nice page, only some trouble with anonymous editors who were tracked back to Penta's offices)
- Answers in Genesis What can I say? It's a battle.
- Ken Ham (He seems like such a friendly person...)
- Emergence (I was accused of being NPOV and I've since given up)
- Red_string_(Kabbalah) (approached a flame-war. After a massively long discussion I managed to get a few sentences in acknowledging that there's no scientific proof that wearing of a bit of red string increases your luck.)
Wikipedia pages we would all do well to read
Yeah, everyone quotes NPOV, but how many of us have actually read the guidelines? (Not me, until a week ago!)
- NPOV Everyone thinks they understand this, but most of us could still learn a thing or two.
- No personal attacks I was on the verge of doing this once or twice. Sure wish I had read this page earlier. Makes sense.
- Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style Again, we would all do well to look at this page once a decade or so.
Betcha didn't know this
(filched from Micro Persuasion, 10 Wikipedia hacks )
- This fantastic page allow incremental key-press searching of Wikipedia .
Proud to be a Fascist Hindu
Well- actually I'm neither of these things. The point I'd like to make though is that my personal opinions should be irrelevant to my Wikipedia edits. I have a bias in favor of facts over fiction and euphemism. Some have pointed out that this could be seen as a POV, since not everyone's facts are the same. If you disagree with my facts- then please provide documented sources that support a contrasting point of view. If however, you disagree with the bias of using facts in the first place, then I'm not sure how to respond. I believe that Wikipedia should be a fact-based encyclopedia. Not everyone shares this belief.
I am not a Fascist Hindu. I am, however, President of the World
I try not to let my obvious power over Earth's minions cloud my judgment in Wikipedia edits. I am a benevolent dictator and encourage my subjects to think for themselves (within limits).
I elected myself President of the World because everyone's beliefs (and especially yours) seem ludicrous to me. This should not however be an obstacle which prevents us from collaborating together to produce a great article which adheres to Wikipedia's NPOV standards.
Wikipedia user pages should not be a place for cheap jokes
I've noticed a worrying trend in Wikipedia user pages for people to make cheap jokes. This should be discouraged, as it does not benefit the Wikipedia project (whose ultimate goal is to seize Belgium).
I saw the Vonnegut quote on www.ephilosopher.com, a website that it quite reputable, and run by a great and generous philosopher(who I only know by his screen-name, Admantis). I'm sure he would have references if you're interested. Please e-mail me if you are, and I'll ask him. Maprovonsha172 06:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)