User talk:Bfinn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current 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!

I'm sorry that it has taken a month to welcome you properly.

Gareth Hughes 18:03, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Double clarinet

I removed the Wikilink to Bass clarinet because the Wikipedia article doesn't mention the organ stop. I thought of adding a reference, but couldn't immediately see where it should go. If the stop were to be mentioned, then the link could be returned, but otherwise I think that it's more misleading than helpful. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sequencer Groups

I'll just move the discussion on this over to the talk portion of the sequencers page and set myself to watch that since I think it'll be easier to track there.

[edit] RE:Queen Mum

Hi Ben. Don't worry about, I knew you had good intentions and you didn't mean any harm. Best thing is just to compare the two edits and copy in what you want in the new version. Happy editing! Thanks :-) Craigy (talk) 21:49, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ben,

Please be careful with your additions. An encyclopædia has to use neutral sources and neutral language. Some of your edits weren't NPOV. And the article produced by the Socialist Worker is from a comment page. It is blatently POV and would never be used as a source for anything any more than an editorial on the Sun or The Telegraph would be suitable as a source. Commentaries, columns and editorials are by their nature POV. That is the whole point to them. All they can be used for is evidence of an opinion, not evidence of a fact, and as the article does not use editorials we can hardly use one from a minority publication with its own anti-royalist agenda.

NPOV can be tricky. Don't tell the reader what to think. Use neutral language that lets them reach their own conclusion. A lot of your language was more editorial and comment than NPOV and so is not encyclopædic.

FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

No problem, Ben. The problems with the Socialist Worker piece are threefold:
  1. Publications such as it tend to be agenda-driven so are usually best avoided as sources. (The same is true of republican publications, monarchist publications, extreme left, extreme right, etc.) Basically they are propaganda publications aimed at their own members and rarely subscribe to any pretence at NPOV. In contrast even the most biased mainstream publication tends to have to temper its bias to get a general readership.
  2. A comment column is invariably even more POV than the rest of the publication.
  3. Comment columns rarely give any sources whatsoever and often just reflect the personal twist on events of the author. (I've written columns and you are expected to push an agenda, by painting the message as starkly, and indeed as unfairly against those you are criticising, as possible.) So unless there was a section on comments in columns, commentaries and editorials are usually best avoided.

FearÉIREANN\(caint)

[edit] style wars

I've proposed a possible solution to end the style wars. you opinions are most welcome. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Style War proposed solution. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Linda's Website

Linda Moulton Howe's website ishttp//:www.earthfiles.com[1]

Thought I might give you a buzz, and give you the above website. Seen the article.Martial Law 07:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC) :)

Can you merge the Article:"Earthfiles" with your article:"Linda Moulton Howe" ? By the way, she is in Albuquerque,NM. Go to her Contact Info. area, click on that to see her "snail mail",Phone and FAX No.#s.Martial Law 08:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC) :)

Her Contact info. is designated as "Contact Us"Martial Law 08:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC) :)

[edit] Premature obits, Paul is Dead

Sorry about that one, didn't see that "interminable rumors" linked to Paul is Dead. Staxringold 14:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Telepathy

Ive added a response to one your comments. -Psyche|logy 23:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jello Biafra

I don't know which media outlets, if any, mentioned it. I know that Biafra himself mentioned it, and made fun of it, on at least one of his spoken word albums over the past several years. --Cjmarsicano 16:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Britain in Europe: thanks :-)

Thanks for this [2]. Its nice to remember that Britain is part of Europe... William M. Connolley 11:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon

Although I agree with your reasoning in making changes to the criticism section, I don't think that your changes have improved the POV of the article- it now looks like one big attack on EBL. Instead I think the section should be rewritten to be more encyclopaedic, and rely less on claims in supposedly controversial books. Astrotrain 08:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


I concur. The criticisms' sources do need qualification. It seems that their only source Kitty Kelley's The Royals. See "Kitty Kelley: Colonoscopist to the stars" (http://www.slate.com/id/2106746/).

Michael Crowley, the author, is a senior editor at the New Republic -- hardly a conservative organ -- and Slate, of course is no more so. Crowley says of Kelley, inter alia, that her biographies are "juicy, gossipy, salacious, titillating, delightful, and factually suspect"; "it's clear that Kelley is no meticulous historian who nails down her facts with airtight precision. To the contrary, she is the consummate gossip monger, a vehicle for all the rumor and innuendo surrounding her illustrious subjects"; "an individual Kelley story, divorced from a larger narrative about a subject, will easily fall apart." If the article is to have any credibility it should not rely on such a source for bare assertions of fact; if it mentions allegations in such a source it must also mention that the source is suspect. It is noteworthy that Kelley's book has not been published in the UK; if she were confident of being immune to liability in a libel suit surely there would be no hesitation.

Please note that I am not suggesting that the article should not report criticism. I am saying that the reportage of such criticism should be credible. Kelley is marginally so and if she is to be quoted, an honest caveat as to her integrity needs to be entered. Otherwise the article lacks integrity. Masalai 08:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grove

Hello,
Can you provide a source for the following paragraph in Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians: The second edition has been the subject of some academic and press criticism due to various errors it contains, reportedly due in part to students having been used to check it. One volume had to be re-issued in a corrected version after publication. ? I have heard that there are some errors, but I'm not sure what sort of publication might review the New Grove, and it would be good to have a source for that, if possible. Thanks! --Sesquialtera II 18:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

excellent, thanks! --Sesquialtera II 22:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom and Jerry

Hi there. I have a question for you at Talk:Tommy Atkins - take a look? Cheers, JackyR 17:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edge of Darkness

Hi, Bfinn. Do you have a source for the claim that a real bullet was used in filming Edge of Darkness? It's typical hoax material, so I don't think it should stay on Wikipedia unless you can come up with a citation. Slowmover 20:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It's just so hard to believe they would actually do that. Strangely, I always thought the scene looked fake, but maybe that's because I've seen too many Hollywood style shootings. Anyway, I'll keep my eyes peeled for a source too. Slowmover 14:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 23:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] First identification of AIDS

Greetings Bfinn. Could you please specify what you mean about 1 December, 1981 being when "AIDS was first identified"? It is usually stated that the CDC report of 5 June is was the first time the phenomenon was identified. The only references to 1 December I can find are on (or copied from) Wikipedia. I suspect there has been confusion with World AIDS Day somewhere. Thanks.

LachlanA 05:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monster of Glamis

Good edits; I have responded.--Runcorn 06:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/f/i/User_talk%7EBfinn_767b.html"