User talk:Soundofmusicals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

(I've just wiped my talk file up to the end of 2012 - in the most unlikely event that anyone wants to raise anything earlier - pull up an older version from "history")



I did what I could for it, but someone would have to go to the library to really sort it out. There is conflicting information online regarding several points. For example, how long did the Manchester preview run? When exactly did Littlewood quit? Did Bart really do any of the directing, and if so was it before or after Littlewood left? Did Littlewood do any of the writing of what ended up in the book? Were there "previews" in London before the official opening? Much of the information's time frame was vague, and I was not sure what happened in Manchester, in London previews, if any, and on the official opening night, so the Production section now represents my best guess. You could try to add the information about which characters sang which songs by looking at the cast album. I am not watching the article, so ping me if you have any questions. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I just discovered that the early drafts of the article appear to have contained substantial copyvios and plagiarism from this, all of which had been attributed to Roper's book. I've fixed it now, but it makes the article's heavy reliance on the Roper book seem a little dicey. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Once again, the question of usage arises[edit]

Hello, my tuneful friend,

I noted your latest edit summary on Manfred von Richthofen. In hopes of finally finding a basis for affixing a {British-English} or {American-English} tag on the Talk page, I followed edit History back to the article's founder. As you recall, WP policy is that if a Brit began it, it should follow British usage; if an American, then American usage. (And please recall from previous chats, I hold no brief for either usage.)

The result was one unforeseen by the policy makers. A Brazilian began this article, not a Brit nor a Yank. Back to square one. So I suppose the only solution for the usage confusion in this article is a consensus on one way or another.

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I really think they should pick one or the other and keep Wiki to that. I would prefer "standard" English - but look, I could live with (good) Yank usage, if they can agree what it is, be consistent, and steer clear of illiterate barbarisms. At least you'd know where you were. Consistency is after all the name of the game.
The policy of not changing the usage of an article - and leaving it in the usage of the author does have a certain logic to it, but it's essentially a rule of convenience and (I think) it should only apply for subjects that don't have a a strong cultural, historical or geographical context. The object is (I think) probably just to avoid people switching articles from one to the other, or changing the odd word. In fact I would be happy to have it relaced with a blanket rule that all such articles be in standard English (or, if you like, U.S. usage) - see above.
The "ties" rule, if we must have it, is clear as to U.S. and British subjects, although even here we are in a bind - should Scottish subjects be in Scots, for instance - there is a perfectly good rationale for this - but the result would be that almost nobody, even most Scottish people, would be able to read these articles. On the whole, I favour the use of U.S. usage for all clearly "American" subjects (in the widest sense) including Canadian, Mexican, Brazillian etc etc. Similarly - "European English" should apply for European subjects. Including this one. Personally I don't like the ties rule at all - but if we're going to have it - let's stick with it.
That's my vote anyway FWIIW. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I am quite aware of your views about setting usage. However, for my example above I followed WP policy derived from the consensus of earlier editors–and found a big gap in the policy. Apparently, no one foresaw that an ESL (English as second language) user might begin an article.

Georgejdorner (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The common sense thing here, surely, is to ignore nationality of original authorship (since it simply isn't helpful) and go by "ties". Especially since Britain joined the EU there are political and well as geographic reasons why it is not very logical to use U.S. usage for an essentially European topic. really as simple as that. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for jumping in here, but I concur, foreign subject: international standards of language/spelling, dates, measures; U.S. subject: predominately U.S. language/spelling variants. I have recently come across a similar subject where the original article about a French record-breaking aircraft was written by an American (an admin, with the article reaching GA status, no less), whose use of US-isms predominated; it took an immense amount of effort to have the article re-written. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC).


I realize the two of you tend to ignore the WP community's consensus on usage, but that's not my point about this article. If you believe it belongs in Brit usage, slap the appropriate usage tag on it. And if you object to the community consensus on langage usage, how about reopening it in a Request for Comments?

As it is, American usage in an article about a French aircraft is perfectly acceptable to the WP community, even if it does not fit your standards. However, it does follow WP MOS.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Nieuport 28[edit]

After looking at the recent revisions, I am extremely skeptical of the validity of these claims. The sources cited are nothing extraordinary and based on them, the statements "fly in the face" of conventional and accepted history of the type. Having a plethora of poorly written and oddly cited submissions does not bolster the case for the new editor's supposition that everything previously written or researched has been wrong. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC).

See: Policy on image size. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The "general" rule is: "In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so." There are so many problems with different size monitors that normally hard-coding an inline image isn't used. There are different parameters for the use of infobox images. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC).
Taken, but in this case there IS a reason for defining size - at anything like a standard size it is so tiny as to be a waste of time, due to its unusual shape (very wide, but "shallow". I have tried it in different screen resolutions and the display seem to cope nicely - with the picture resizing itself. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Then an "invisible: note may be inserted, as WP:Aviation group long ago decided that images shouldn't be "forced" and that "hard coding" was becoming an issue. I can't recall an aviation-related article with anything other than the default size in use. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
This is the only image I recall that was ever shown in a "panoramic" view, and even that was eventually changed. Just sayin', the image cops are still out there.
B-36J AF Serial Number 52-2220 on display in the Cold War Gallery at the National Museum of the United States Air Force
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
There are in fact many images in other articles where this is done (O.K. I know this is NOT inherently a good excuse, but the fact is they are there and nobody seems to complain that they don't display well). I'm not entering into this lightly or wantonly, just that this is a wonderful image - and it seems a shame not to have it worthily displayed. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally - I have tried to clean up the article itself a bit - while I (obviously) agree with you about the edits as we got them - in fact my initial reaction was to simply revert, I think the "grain or two of truth" inherent in "our" use of poor (Treadwell) and "good but dated" (Cheesman) sources did need adressing. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps a few years ago, some of the variances were acceptable, but as a general rule, stressing "general", putting any hard coding on images just opens the doors to any and all sizes just messing with the graphic layouts of an article. I know a number of "just the facts ma'am" folks that strictly adhere to the no "hard-coding" standard. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC).

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── BTW, what's the problem with a user simply clicking on the image to see it in full resolution; click on the B-36 image to show you what I mean. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC).

All very well - but who goes clicking on images? A more likely reaction from "Mr/Ms typical user" would be simply "Why have they got that scrubby little picture there?". Your invisible note is a good idea to (perhaps) head off the "just the facts ma'am" folks at the pass. And I couldn't agree more about the "general rule". The MOS does however mention "unless there is a good reason" - and for a good reason, I suspect. Let's see what happens, anyway. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Having said all this - I've cut the size a bit - to allow greater leeway for different screen sizes/resolutions. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Nieuport 28s of the 95th.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Nieuport 28s of the 95th.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully this is now fixed!!--Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Nieuport 28 (again)[edit]

In researching some of the online resources on the aircraft type, I stumbled upon "The Nieuport 28." which is the likely source for where our mutual friend "cribbed" his statements. Note the close paraphrasing. My "BS meter" was going off the scale when I first saw the revisions, now I know why. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC).

Not so much "close paraphrasing" as direct plagarism! Just as well we cleaned this up between us. None the less, it IS a much better article now!! I was interested in those performance figures, by the way - until I noticed they were achieved on a lighter prototype rather than a service machine with full operational load. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
FURTHER to this - the reference covering ten pages of the Hamady book ( was itself pulled from an aerodrome forum page. I don't believe he has the book, or that he has read it. On the other hand this does seem to be the answer - Somebody probably has to read this one, not just pick up references to it from a forum - if fixing this article is going to work. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Auld lang syne[edit]

Hi! I believe that you haven't heard the song or read the citation that i put there so that's why you believe that you need further information to decide if my contribution should be in the main page of ALS:

I believe it's really unfair that many countries have their own section because of international versions of auld lang syne that are only sung in universities or parades, while "jipy jay" is sung all over Peru, has very distinctive peruvian music (but still with the main tune of ALS), and it's usually sung as a farewell song (see videos on youtube if you are unsure).


Juanmaklaot (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The place for this kind of discussion (especially when it is already going) is the talk page for the article concenred. I hope you don't mind, but I have copied your remarks above to that page - and answered you there. Best wishes. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Maitreya claimants are Bodhisattva which seems to have caused an edit war[edit]

Yes, recently I was helping categorize urn categorized Bodhisattas or rather uncategorized Bodhisattva claimants in the Bodhisattvas category. This has needlessly lead to an edit war. For example, if a person claims to be Akashagarbha, Avalokiteshvara, Kshitigarbha, Mahastamaprapta, Maitreya, Manjushri, Samatabahadra, Sarvanivaraavishkambin, or any other bodhisattva, that's a bodhisattva claim, even if it isn't explicitly specified as such on that particular page. One of the three edit warriors claim there was no such claim on the page, to Bodhisattvahood, but as explained earlier there is a claim to Maitreyahood on the page which is the same thing actually. I'll copy and past this to the talk pages of all three edit warriors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nieuport 28, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dihedral (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fokker Scourge, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Roland Garros and DH.2 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


Hi. This article is confusing with respect to the origin and chronology of the genre, many sections are very listy, and the article is badly under-referenced. Indeed, I think it contains much frankly dubious material. As to the current chronology issue, in the 18th century, the harlequinade was, according to Crowther, *not* the dominant part of the entertainment. Grimaldi was instrumental in making it so early in the 19th century, but later in the 19th century, the fairy story again became dominant, so I have now changed the statement to just the 1800s. I hope to give the article some attention at some point, if I can get to it. In the meantime, I have added several actual references, which is, at least, a start. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Coherence, consistency, and comprehensibility are the three things without which all didactic writing is gibberish. Getting the facts right, and referencing them properly, are also vital, but if (as can happen in the best intentioned wikipedia article) the well referenced facts are insufficiently well chosen to hang together, or contradict each other, or in some other way tend to confuse the ordinarily intelligent reader, if, in fact, the overall impression is that the author of the article (even the kind of "collective author" we find on WP) doesn't really have any idea what "he" is talking about, then... But of course you know all this as well as I do. I am delighted that someone of your very considerable ability has chosen to sweep up this untidy article, but please do it in the light of the "three Cs". (repeated on Ssilvers'page) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Sopwith Triplane[edit]

Concerning your correction: Sorry for the misspelling, but I don't really understand what you mean by "out of period" language?! --KnightMove (talk) 11:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

No big deal - I meant the verb "deploy" - which is pretty recent - and which I personally wouldn't use in an historical article like this. I had no problems whatever with mentioning the Dr.I here - I nearly just corrected your spelling, but when I got down to it felt it could be put more succinctly. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Just an idea...[edit]

Hello, I see you are revamping the pantomime article, hoorah! Just an idea, but I recently added this File:Sketches from the 1891 Pantomime at Drury Lane by Phil May.jpg and thought you might like to use it. I haven't added it for obvious reasons. Great idea to recondition the article by the way, and if I can be of any help please message me. -- CassiantoTalk 13:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It's actually the illustrious Ssilvers doing all the work - I am but an interested spectator really. You might like to run the suggestion past him if you have not already done so.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I will. I didn't actually know he had initiated the idea. The lucky blighter is off on a short break so I will offer my services when he gets back. Best as always! -- CassiantoTalk 23:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Fokker Scourge[edit]

Some edits, mainly sweeping and dusting. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, som,

Read through current version. Admire the specificity of it. The bit enumerating the low number of initial casualties inflicted by the Fokkers is fascinating. I wonder if you have considered adding this info to the Luftstreitkräfte article. It might be especially interesting if overclaiming of victories was already in effect...right from the start of aerial warfare. Also, there seemed to be an "ace race" right from the start; that might also be an interesting sidelight to portray. And there is no current description of the evolution of the Jadgstaffeln.

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone - hopefully we'll be allowed to keep what is now one of the better WWI articles (if I do say so myself - no one ever said I was ever cursed with false modesty) without further jealous pique from people who should know better.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

A very nice little bit indeed. I compared drafts, and admired how you sharpened Dap's draft with specifics. He shouldn't be hurt by the fact you improved his draft of the article; that's what WP is all about. I've been on both ends of that stick, and no complaints here.

Are you going to push this article into assessment? Georgejdorner (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I am not sure at all how to contact you, so I apologize if making an edit here is incorrect. I just had a quick (albeit petty) question regarding the Fokker Scourge article. A few days ago I reworded the last sentence of the first paragraph from

"Significant as the technical advantage of the new fighter was, the psychological effect of its unheralded introduction was also a major factor."


"The significance of the technical advantage of the new fighter was the psychological effect of its unheralded introduction."

you reverted the change back to the original, however the wording still doesn't make sense to me. I didn't think my edit changed the meaning of the sentence - just reworded it to make sense. Can you explain why my edit was incorrect? You seem far more active and knowledgeable on wikipedia standards and edits than I am so I I'm just trying to figure out where I went wrong so I don't repeat the same mistake in the future. Thanks.

Also, if this isn't how I'm supposed to contact you can you please let me know where I should contact you in the future? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asaydjari (talkcontribs) 04:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If the original sense of the sentence is unclear to you (i.e. you genuinely have difficulty understanding what it means) then how, pray tell, can you express its meaning better? Perhaps if we put it into two separate sentences? "The technical advantage was significant. The psychological impact was another matter, and also significant". The trouble with your edit is that the meaning is rather different from that of the original, and not what we quite what we want to say. The technical advantage was in fact relatively small, compared with the surprise of its existing at all, on the other hand the advantage was far from a total illusion, its significance existed quite apart from the psychological effect.
you are of course welcome to contact me on this page, but for this kind of question is always greatly preferable to use the talk page for the article concerned (in this case the talk page of Fokker Scourge). That way others will be able to contribute to the discussion. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Frederick Libby[edit]

Hello, my tuneful friend,

Nice job on cleaning up the article. I am not quite certain how it got to such a state; I recall leaving it in good order. I extended the lead a bit, to include his latter life.

I am a bit amazed/amused by your aversion to the word "airplane". Do today's Brits still write and say "aeroplane"?

Georgejdorner (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, aeroplane is totally the "standard" English word every where but in the U.S. and (perhaps?) Canada. As is "aerodynamics", "aerodyne", "aerostat" and many other words which it were tedious to rehearse (hem hem). Even in Australia, where we're much more tolerant of Americanisms than in the "old sod", "airplane" is almost comically illiterate. In fact I suspect there are some people wouldn't even identify it "up front" as an Americanism at all - and just look on it as a childish misspelling - the way a three or four year old would say it. Hence all the trouble they've been having over the "Airplane" article - it had the title "Fixed wing aircraft" or something like that for a long time. I must admit I thought for years that "airplane" was in the same category as "sox" (for "socks") - a kind of "joke" spelling than even the septic tanks didn't take seriously. Oh dear... Anyway, since the word "aircraft" is "trans Atlantic" - and in most contexts means the same thing we can usually get away with that, which is what I did here, of course. Libby himself, interestingly, uses "plane" and "ship" in the passages we quote in the article - neither of which would be MOS except in a direct quote, but not "airplane". I might re-read my copy of "horses" to check if he uses it there at all. Funnily enough, "aeroplane" was standard American when the word in Britain was "flying machine" (usually abbreviated to "machine"). Perhaps we'll adopt "airplane' some time down the track to find that you people are calling them "wooshbangs" or something. More to the point - glad you didn't notice anything drastically wrong with the article. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, g'day to you too, som,

I inquired because in the American lexicon, "aeroplane" is of the same vintage as "horseless carriage", and is used about as frequently in our discourse.

However, to pay due credit to your ability to pick the correct word, I must admire your latest edit to this article. I was angling for an adjective when I used "false"; you hooked "unfounded", for which I was fishing. My compliments, sir.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Good to hear from you. Because of the almost Parisian emphasis on the letter "R" in most American dialects of English the there is a lot less difference in pronunciation than might appear between (say) an Australian saying "aeroplane" and a Septic saying "airplane". To us the word "air" doesn't have an "R" sound at all, so if we spelled it the same way as you people we'd say something like "epplayn", or even "upplayn", with a drawling emphasis on the last syllable. Currently we pronounce it something like "Erraplayn", with the first and last syllables stressed, and the "a" in the middle very short and lightly stressed, in fact almost mute. Either way, it's the same word, of course, the problem is entirely one of spelling. The Australian variety of illiteracy tends strongly towards pronouncing words, especially ones with a Greek etymology, as we imagine they're spelled - like saying "hyperbole" as "High-per-bowl" which grates with an elderly intellectual like me MUCH worse than any Americanism. (Why can't they just say "zadjarayshun"!) "Aeroplane" was of course itself originally an Americanism in non-U.S. English anyway, which fact I alluded to gracefully above.
Again much more to the point - calling the fears of a widower father who lost his wife to tuberculosis and no doubt noticed some of the same symptoms in his son "false" is a bit brutal, of course the man was (perfectly justifiably) anxious. In fact on re-reading the article (after enjoying "Horses" again, and wanting to check we'd got the man's Wiki article about right) it struck me as a positively bizarre word misuse, not right at all. Glad you agree that "unfounded" is much better, anyway. Perhaps we do speak the same language (really) after all. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I do believe we share a dedication toward seeing our respective brands of English are well-written.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Friday, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black Friday (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


No biggie on my part, I was just using a "standard" appellation from the Aviation Project Group, but this is Wickywackywonderland, after all, so make the change, I'm OK with it. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

About the Ali Baba article.[edit]

Well i have the One Thousand and One Nights book myself, though it is in Danish and not in English, what should i do then? --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Your Danish version is almost certainly a "retelling" of the story, not a direct translation of the original. When a story-teller (or an author, of course) retells a story he or she usually adds little touches like this to make the story their own. If you can find the change in the story you want to introduce in a direct translation from the Arabic (preferably, since this is the English Wikipedia, an English translation) then you might be able to add it - but then we would need a footnote to the book you used. Another thing is would this detail be notable - i.e. does it really have anything to do with the story? Some people might think not - the retelling of a story in an article like this needs to be short and to the point. (NOT the way I'd spin it out if I were telling it to my grandchildren, for instance). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

File:SADS7BRIT.jpg missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 19:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

George Gershwin[edit]

Hi Soundofmusicals. Before to start explaining the notion of the "Russian Jews" and its usage in the article, please check my commentary on the talk page with another user who has recently asked me to explain the same issue. The ambiguity derives from the clear-cut definition of many other modern nationalities, which determines a person to be part of a nation if he or she is associated with the country or the region where that nation was formed. Thus, a person is German if he or she is associated with Germany, French if he or she is associated with France or Russian if he or she is associated with Russia. However, the same does not apply for the Russian Jews who are an ethnolinguistic group of Jews whose native language is Russian. In this sense, Russian is used to denote the primary language used in the family and not the country of origin. Most of the Russian Jews come from the territories that were part of the Russian Empire (some of them specifically from Russia in its borders today), but there are also many that have laid there ancestry in these territories and immigrated to other countries, mostly in the United States, France or Israel. For more information you should also check the article about Russian Jews. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough if we were talking about Gershwin's parents, who were Ukrainian, but we're not. If we carried your argument to its logical conclusion there would be no such thing as American nationality except for pure blooded Native Americans since everyone else in America has European or African ancestry (or both, of course). Americans of Italian ancestry, for instance, are not designated "Italian Catholics", nor are Americans whose parents came from Belfast lumped with "Irish Protestants". They are sometimes called Italian-Americans, or (less often) Irish-Americans - but I have never heard of a Russian-American. Gershwin was certainly not "Russian" by any definition he would have recognised himself. Incidentally - this is my talk page, and not the correct place to discuss something like this. I will copy this to the proper place - the talk page for the article concerned, and I would appreciate your continuing the discussion there, "in public". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Soundofmusicals. Calling me a "crusader with a bee in his bonnet" is not something that assumes good faith and respect to the other users on Wikipedia. I confess to have been sharp in the discussion, but haven't used similar idioms to direct a personal attack as you apparently did when leaving a comment in the edit summary. Please be careful in the future! Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course it was inappropriate language - and I am bound to apologise. Edit summaries are trickier places for this sort of thing as they are added in the spur of the moment and there is no taking them back once they're made. On the other hand some of your own remarks (not to me, but to other editors) on the open talk page, have also not been very conducive to the assumption of good faith. Pots calling kettles black and all that. Not that I mean that as any excuse, 'cause it's not, but ... I haven't looked yet, but I do hope any response to my remarks there was taken in the kindly spirit in which they were meant. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Your apology is accepted! The main reason why we're here, after all, is to work together to improve the content on Wikipedia. Best.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Imperial Russian Air Service[edit]


I have just finished some additions to this article that may strike your interest. You did mention working on a rewrite of Interrupter gear, did you not?

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

File:WW1Immelmann.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:WW1Immelmann.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The PRECIOUS has been found...all THREE of them![edit]

WW I AERO issues 137, 138 and 142 are "all three of them"... imagine our friend Smeagol reaching for a Parabellum MG14 and a Stangensteuerung instead, in this one!

Dear Soundofmusicals: The PIPE Here...just to let you know, a bit of very determined searching in my still disastrous-looing bedroom managed to find WW I AERO issues #137, #138 AND #142 this Friday THE PRECIOUS trio of Hank Volker-authored gun synchronizer articles in that trio of issues of WW I AERO are very close to hand at this very moment!!

My HP ScanJet 3C WILL be "busy" over the next week of time, of that you can be certain!

Yours Sincerely, The PIPE (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

VERY exciting news indeed!! Looking forward to them. Hoping, of course, for a few informational "gap fillers", but just having these for the sake of additional sources of citations will also be great. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Soundofmusicals:

The PIPE Here once again - thanks to some very hard work with my scanner, Corel Photo-Paint 12 and MS Word 2003 on my PC during this weekend, the first and second of the three articles is, as of this Sunday afternoon (11.8.2013) here in Southern New England, all ready to send out to you as an MS Word 2003 ".doc" file of just about 5.1 megabytes (the second is at 3.3 MB) - please let me know where you'd like it sent along so it gets to you, unless you'd also want it as an Adobe PDF file, which WILL require a "print-to-disk" procedure with my FinePrint pdfFactory software to achieve.

The PIPE (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

MS Word files will do fine. If you could attach them to emails, my address is *********. I don't think there will be "size" problems, but if there are you might zip them. Have you looked at the article again? I have got a bit more finished (well, "first drafted" at least) and done some rearranging. Just knowing you are looking at my work is giving me a bit of motivation. I am still planning to do all the references in one go when the text itself is pretty well finalised. Really am most grateful you have found these for me. Best wishes. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

This "thing" just keeps growing and GROWING...[edit]

Dear Soundofmusicals:

The PIPE Here yet again - when I was doing the initial scanning of Part 3 of the Hank Volker "synchronizers" series of treatises, the first page of text that opens part 3 partly read, "A forthcoming Part IV in the series on Firing Through the Prop will deal with the theory of machine gun synchronization...", so some more searching at WW I Aero's site led to discovering that indeed a "Part 4" exists, but ALSO a "Part 5 and Part 6" were published by the late Mr. Volker as well, with the remaining trio of portions to be found in my copies of WW I AERO issues #145, #148 AND #154 from the 1990s, all now sitting near my computer for scanning. Parts 1 and 2 are all formatted in MS Word, with Part 3 now all scanned and to be cleaned up for MS Word formatting later on Monday (12.8.2013). Parts 4 through 6 will be scanned and formatted-up during the week as time permits, and placed in separate MS Word documents to complete what is actually a SIX part series...I'd suppose that it can't get any better than that !

Got to get back to cleaning up & formatting-up the Part 3 scans and do some more job search...

Yours Sincerely, The PIPE (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

WOW --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Please I need an Administrator's help[edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I have rewritten the interrupter gear article, which was a right mess - bringing it down to its actual subject, among other things. In consultation with some other editors I have been working on it in my sandbox for some time. I also want to use a more appropriate title. "Interrupter" is recognised nowadays as a rather bad term for the thing itself, and "Synchronizer" as a better one - although they have been used interchangeably in the past.

I am having difficulty getting the article to move to the desired title, apparently because the new title is already in use (as a redirect to the old title). I have tried moving the redirect at the desired new name but this doesn't seem to work.

Can anyone help??

--Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

N.B. I have parked the article at "SynchroniSation gear" (S in place of Z) for the moment - but this is definitely NOT the final solutions. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Soundofmusicals, what you need to do in this case is go to the redirect page Synchronization gear, and add {{db-move}} to the top, which will let an admin know that the page should be deleted to make way for a page move. Hope this helps! Howicus (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that - but I already tried a (possibly very naughty) workaround using cut 'n paste!! I THINK I have avoided/fixed any unpleasant side-effects of doing this. You may like to check? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

OOPS!!! (see above help topic)[edit]

Just found out why I shouldn't have done that cut 'n paste!!!

{{admin help}}

The history of the old article (very little of which survives in the new, incidentally) is now stuck in what is now purely a redirect page, at "Interrupter gear". try to work out how to move the history over - looks like a job for a specialist. Sorry. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed - the history (and the talk page and its history) are now at Synchronizer gear, and all the others are redirects to that. I don't think that leaves any double-redirects, but if there are any a bot will sort them out. Now you have found out why you shouldn't, I'm sure you won't do it again! There is a useful template {{db-move}} you should put on the target article to ask for it to be deleted to make way for a move, the format being {{db-move|page to be moved here|reason}}. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Congrats to getting the Synchronizer gear article up![edit]

The PIPE here again - glad to see that you got the article up, and recently I've gotten back to the very first article I ever primarily authored at Wikipedia, the Bristol Scout...I'm once again starting to get GOOD references from the Windsock Datafile (No.44) posted up now on that, and perhaps some more scans from my copy will end up on that page very soon!

By the way...I've been busy enough helping out my mother, looking for work AND staying busy around the house, I've had no time even as yet for that Wikipedia "user page"...sometime, when I can find some REALLY usable help on creating such a "user page" at Wikipedia, I could get going on that...might you know of any I could start with, perhaps?

Yours Sincerely, The PIPE (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Ho Pipe!
"For these kinds words accept my thanks, I pray..." Have a look at my user page - as well as those of some other people you feel are reasonably sensible editors, and by all means pick my (and their) brains. There are lots of templates that give pretty results.
Sorry to take a while to get back to you, by the way - but I have (obviously) been a bit preoccupied. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Some MORE photos of the Bristol Scout are now up at its Wikipedia page - they "pass the muster" of being not only pre-1923 photos by American standards, but the even more recent UK standards of a pre-1943 dating.

No wonder my old RC buddy Hank Iltzsch (left us in the autumn of 2010) decided to do up the Scout D version as an RC Giant Scale (called "large scale" in the UK)...I've got Hank's construction plans for his Scout D model (throughj a 2-part construction article in the USA's Academy of Model Aeronautics national Model Aviation monthly magazine in March & April 1981) as a way to remember him by, and to aid in someday building that Scout C (No.1611) of Lanoe Hawker's from the summer of 1915 someday in 3 inches = 1 foot scale magnificence...!!!

Thanks again and Yours Sincerely,

The PIPE (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

A Shavian kitten for you![edit]

Red Kitten 01.jpg

A barnstar would have been in order, but since you appear to be a cat person I hereby give you to a (suitably red-bearded) kitten, for laudable diligence in the article on George Bernard Shaw. May you serve it faithfully.

Sirion123 (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that cute. At least it won't walk over my computer keyboard and sit on the desk in front of the monitor, like another cute feline I know does! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I know you WERE worried...[edit]

The PIPE Here again - when you mentioned to me earlier that you had an ELECTION coming up "down under", was it by any chance the Australian federal election, 2013...and was it one Tony Abbott, whom progressive Americans might think of as part of an Aussie version of the USA's bunch of Tea Party movement hyper-conservatives, that you feared getting elected as Australia's new PM, by any chance?

Just wondering, that's all...

Yours Sincerely, The PIPE (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Alas, that's EXACTLY what I was talking about...--Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Theory of sonics may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • gear#The Constantinesco synchronization gear|]The Constantinesco synchronization gear]], used on military aircraft in order to allow them to target opponents without damaging their own
  • :: '''''I''''' = '''''ra'''''Ω (the maximum alternating flow in square centimeters per second; Amplitude of the flow.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hope I've fixed this properly! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Featured Article Review of Albert Ball[edit]


I have nominated Albert Ball as a Featured Article candidate. Because you were a major influence on the present text, I have mentioned you on the FAR nomination page as such, with a notation that you are are being invited to become a co-nominator. I would be delighted to have you on board as such.

Georgejdorner (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there a process of further assessment and improvement involved? There are two things I am actually concerned about in the current article - one of which you can probably guess, the other is a "new" one I have that has been bothering me since you got the "Good Article" bit through. If these could be "mended" it would greatly reinforce my feelings about trying to get this fine article upgraded to "Featured".
1. I still don't like us seeming to endorse (as opposed to mentioning) the story of Ball dying in the arms of the fair young maiden (or the buxom matron, or whatever she might have been). There are a rack of legends about Ball (many of them of French rather than British origin) and this is quite patently one of them. Honestly, I put this one roughly on a par with the one about his being shot down while consulting the church tower clock. Ideally we would allow for the (rather slim) likelihood of at least one version of the legend (there are more than one) having some grain of truth by adding to our current mention a discreet disclaimer. Perhaps something like "there is a legend that...", or "it is said that...". I know I suggested something like this at the time, and consensus went against me, just taking this opportunity to mention it again.
Pengelly, page 196: "When Hailer and his companions reached the site they found that Ball had already been lifted from the wreckage by a local French girl, Mademoiselle Cecile Delorffe."
Bowyer, pages 211-212: "Hailer and his three companions immediately hurried to the site of the crash, to find Ball's body had already been removed from the wreckage of his machine and laid on the ground by a local French girl. The girl, Madame Lieppe-Colon, had been the first to reach the wrecked aircraft...."
My followup research on these young women did not help me distinguish the actual identity of the woman in question, although it revealed they were both married women with children, and not the dewy maiden of legend.
Nevertheless, if we don't want to keep what I found as a corrective to the romanticized legend, we could drop mention of her entirely. If only to get on with article development.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
2. The other thing is that I have been reading and researching for a rewrite I am working on of the S.E.5 article, which has brought home how groundless and foolish Ball's prejudice against it was. Nowadays some people even read Ball's comments as "fact", even retailing his conviction that it was the "Ball-modifications" to his own pet S.E. (all of which had to be reversed, except the removal of the semi-enclosure to the cockpit, which was in already in train anyway) that "saved" the S.E. and made it a workable fighter!
My point is that Ball's "disparagement" of the S.E. perhaps needs to be a little more specific, and its irrationality pointed out. The idea that he ever admitted he was wrong about the S.E. is one I can find no good confirmation of, although he does seem to have stopped complaining. The best of us has his flaws (working on the George Bernard Shaw article has brought this home to me) - and a really good "biographical" encyclopedia article needs to at least drop a hint about its subject's faults (in Ball's case his pig-headedness - he seems to have been set to become an incredible "Colonel Blimp" had he lived to his middle years) as well as praising his fine qualities. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, som,

I should think your added info on Ball and the SE.5 could turn out very interesting indeed. It could indeed shed some insights into Ball's personality. However, I think its ultimate location in WP will depend on what you turn up. It is as likely to belong in Royal Aircraft Factory SE.5 as in the Ball article.

I wish, that when you do this, you keep an eye out for a question that has plagued me. That is, Did the brass want to harness Ball's mechanical expertise in solving the SE.5's early problems? Is that (a reason) why his limited assignment back to France?

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

See why I didn't trust myself to actually find that mention in Pengelly - even with the open text in front of my face? Prejudice does strange things. On consideration, I don't really mind it going in (maybe as a footnote rather than in the main text) provided that the fact that the sources can't agree about little details like who the fair young maiden actually was is clear. I think that could probably be phrased so that we can express sensible cynicism that doesn't look too much like OR. Tend to agree about NOT adding too much to the Ball article about the S.E.5, especially seeing how little we have in it about the AFB.1. We'll see anyway. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

A query about machine guns[edit]

Hello, som,

While you were working on your notorious gun synchronization article, I wonder if you ran across a specific fact. Did the users of magazine-fed guns such as the Lewis ever complain about the limited ammo thus supplied, or about the deadly distractions of changing magazines?

Georgejdorner (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

98 rounds in a "double" Lewis drum was a fair few. The gun would probably have jammed if you tried to let the whole thing off in one burst - not to mention "bluing the barrel (over-heating it so it "lost its temper" and had to be replaced. Wish I could replace a certain person when she loses her temper!) Lewis gunners were trained to fire in short bursts rather than just squeeze the trigger and "hose away" - it was never, on the ground or in the air, "that" kind of gun. The subject of Lewis drums running out at the worst possible moment (and then jamming so they wouldn't come off) did come up of course, but I think generally it was just accepted as a fact of life. One of the reasons some observers liked twin guns is they could fire one gun till it was empty and then the other - I always imagined they fired both together but apparently that often wasn't the case. If any of this is for a Wiki article I could dig you up a reference or two. The book that "no home should be without" if it contains anyone interested in WWI aircraft guns is Early Aircraft Armament by Harry Woodman. It's out of print and very expensive and no you can't have my copy! If you're really lucky you may have access to a library that owns one? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Music Man may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • the other hand, is limited to a single violin and a bass, to accompany some quieter numbers.<ref>[, accessed October 11, 2013</ref><ref>[,accessed October 11, 2013</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Opting in to VisualEditor[edit]

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 50 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "Enable VisualEditor. It will be available in the following namespaces: $1". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


Farman did consider suing Bristol. It's unfortunate that the reference to this in the Boxkite is uncited at present (some zealot has just slapped citation needed articles on a lot of aero articles wherever there is no ref at the end of a para} but the information is kosher & most probably came from Bristol Aircraft Since 1910. I dont have that to hand at the moment but will be fixing the tag in the Boxkite article & will then replace in Farman article.TheLongTone (talk) 08:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Just that at this stage there were so many clones of any type that proved halfway practical (including literally dozens of "Farmans". The Farman itself followed the Wright layout, with one or two innovative variations. And the bare statement, as I hinted in my edit summary, is VERY vague. Did Farman have a patent on something unique to their design? The Wrights of course wanted to sue everyone who used any kind of lateral control - they even got a court ruling at one stage that every American company building aircraft should pay them royalties. I believe Curtis cut that nonsense by simply buying the Wrights out. In this case we really would need something pretty specific (like who actually "considered" a court action, on what grounds, how far did they take it, and what stopped them in the end) and in a good source - and even then I'd tend to exercise caution rather than being too keen to rush in where angels fear to tread. When in doubt - leave it out! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

FA congrats[edit]

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Albert Ball to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA you may have helped to write) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,336 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks, BencherliteTalk 11:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
Your skepticism and inquiring mind served as a test for the veracity of Albert Ball's biography, and were largely responsible for its development into a Featured Article. Georgejdorner (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Werner Voss Peer Review[edit]


As you have previously shown interest in biographies of World War I flying aces, you are invited to critique the above.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Help correct this model[edit]

Help correct this model:

Albatros D.III in 1915.jpg

it will need a rename. Are you interested in identifying a tranche of WWI airplane photos from the US Library of Congress? You will need a yahoo email to get access to Flickr Commons, I think I can get you to the point in the photo stream. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's an Albatros B.I - the radiator over the engine is unusual - they usually had side radiators like the Albatros B.II and C.I. Don't have a Yahoo adress, suppose I could always get one. Might have a look at the photos concerned, worth a look anyway. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I added them to a gallery: I think you need a yahoo or Flickr account to view them. The Library of Congress adds about 50 new images from the 1910s each week. They are in a tranche for 1916 now. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

viewed your gallery with no problems. I have got the odd graphic from this source before for a particular Wiki article - the great thing is that there are no copyright problems if we can cite LC. The photos in your gallery are mostly badly damaged (by deterioration of the original negative?) and some are either already on Wiki, or widely known in better versions. Not altogether sure what you want me to do. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Gershwin the little hoodlum[edit]

I reverted your revert of my earlier work. This characterization is from Schwartz. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough! My original reversion wasn't just a knee-jerk thing. It read very like a typical vandal remark - I tried (without success) to work out just when it entered the article, and ended up cutting it as probable mischief. Perhaps the wording could be made a little more encyclopedic? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I guess it could be made more encyclopedic. :(
Binksternet (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Dicta Boelcke[edit]

"Oooooooooooooooooh" doesn't really explain the reversion of an edit. The statement was something that doesn't require a citation, and is consistent with the prior paragraphs of the article. I've undone your undo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Get an account if you want to be taken seriously, please. Make comments about a particular article on the talk page for that article unless there is really something you want to say to another editor (pretty please). Sign your edits (double pretty please). Saying that "only one aircraft can be in an (unobstructed) 6 0'clock position" is a bit like saying "up is the opposite of down". Do you know the little French nursery rhyme about the three chickens? It also makes the same point. In any case quite a lot of the shooting in a dogfight was "on an angle" - why deflection shooting was so important. If you'd waited for a straight "sitter" (a pure unobstructed shot from directly behind) you'd never have got a chance to shoot at anything. Having said all that - sorry about the edit summary - it was rude and unhelpful. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Genuine question: Exactly why is an account necessary to be taken seriously? I understand an IP isn't a unique identifier of a person, but then when was that ever important in a the community edited wiki? I did make a comment on the talk page explaining I'd left a message here - precisely because I thought you were trolling :P The point of signing an edit is contained in your answer/non-answer to the first question in this paragraph. If it's for readability, well..then Wiki doesn't format different authors' edits differently... and its up to the user to indent/etc. to point out where his edit starts and the ends. In any case, I know some bot will auto-sign the edit with my IP. As regards the change on the article in question - I don't think the edit implied that people waited to fire until they got to the exact position. Rather, it serves to emphasise the difficulty of getting into an optimal position itself, and how that compounds with the number of aircraft. Haven't changed it though, because we're well into grammar pedant territory now :D
Why did I say you should get an account? Genuine answer. Wikipedia is a brave experiment. ANYONE can edit it, which is of course enormously fraught. Anyone with even a charitable expectation of humanity would expect MOST editors to be deliberately malicious and/or have an age (mental and/or chronological) of about 10 and/or be suffering from a more or less serious mental illness. And I don't think it is unfair to point out that many edits ARE in fact of this nature, producing what can only be described as graffiti ("vandalism" in wikispeak). "Serious" editors spend a great deal of time that (theoretically at least) could be spent much more productively "reverting vandalism" (scraping graffiti off the wall). The (potentially at least) useful encyclopedia is being built by a relatively small core of "serious" editors - most of whom (at least after the first week or so) get an account. Getting an account does not identify you personally - but it does mean "we" (i.e. not just "management", but more importantly the body of serious editors) "know" who you are in terms of what you do here. An editor with a proper account and a long record of well intentioned ("good faith" in wikispeak) edits that are at least most of the time more or less hit the mark (actually improve articles) will be "taken seriously". His/her edits will not be reverted lightly, fellow editors will tend to read them carefully and mull over them before hitting the "undo" button and racing on to the next item in the mornings work on their "watch list". Alternatively, of course, a registered editor with a history of graffiti can be "undone" without much thought. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Aah.. but it's a 'brave' experiment, iff you don't introduce conditions which insulate it from what you depict as the "big bad world". Being prejudicial about the nature of edits (i.e. extending the principle of charity only to registered editors and accepting edits without sceptical review, while subjecting 'anonymous' IP-only edits to inquisition, and unread deletion) instantly changes the nature of the experiment. Suddenly, this 'core' of "serious editors" - in acting as gatekeepers are serving the same function as those Brittanica/World Book/Encarta etc. employees who were tasked with selecting contributors, rather than content.
Sounds like too much work to read every editor's submission, and spend the time verifying it? THAT's the point. No one was ever meant to go around policing Wikipedia, let alone policing all of it. Misinformation propagation by ill-advised omission/removal is on par with misinformation by vandalism. In other words, unbridled non-expert (based on the fit of person with article they're operating on) censors are the same as the vandals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
"Every editor's submission" does need to be scrutinised SOMEHOW though. Otherwise it's not a brave experiment but a piece of silly tomfoolery. In practice a good deal of this work can be (and is) done automatically. (About half? a lot anyway) of all submissions are the purest graffiti (of the "Jack 4 Jill" variety) or plain unexplained blanking of sections of text, and are quietly filtered by bots. The rest (and remember most of this is BS too) has to be looked at by a human - and given the sheer volume involved a lot of this necessary spadework ("policing"? "gate keeping"? the point is it wouldn't be an encyclopedia at all without it!) IS based as much on knowledge about a contributor's other efforts as analysis of the content of a particular edit. If the only remarks on "your" talk page are vandalism warnings then a lot of what you submit is liable to get reverted on the spot. Getting your own account at least means that you're not saddled with the stigma of the silly nonsense of others who might have used the same IP, and once you build up a history of useful edits in a particular subject area then people are much more likely to take you seriously, and at least read and consider any edits you make before hitting the "undo" button. What do you suggest as an alternative? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...[edit]

Bolas navideñas.jpg FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fokker Scourge may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[Image:Interrupter gear diagram en.png|thumb|right|250px|Diagram of Fokker's "''Stangensteuerung''"

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed (hopefully). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


Glad you liked meeting Benchley. He has worn very well - an example to us all! NebY (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Robinson Crusoe[edit]

Paul, perhaps you are a well-meaning person as you indicate, so I intend this letter to be cordial. I suggest that you should not delete an entire significant fact such as my inclusion of "Gilligan's Island" in the television section of the "Robinson Crusoe" page. Clearly any English-speaking person watching television over the past forty to fifty years will back me up that the classic sitcom's end-title lyrics are the most oft-cited reference to the novel in all that time, and that the novel's influence in the development of the show is unquestionable, and the show's relevance is surely more definitive compared to the other television mentions in the television section.

I did not originate the mistaken "Lost in Space" mention, and do not take issue with its deletion since the entry was in error. Rather than delete it myself, I did just add a correcting note at the end, leading into my totally correct and justifiable "Gilligan's Island" entry.

Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It is a bizarre reaction for you to have followed my polite olive branch with another undoing of my insert, furthering the offense with your calling it vandalism, which is more appropriately applied to your deleting it, with all the mindfulness of just repeatedly hitting the "undo" link without any merit or explanation behind it whatsoever. My post is certainly factually correct, with perfect spelling and grammar, and relevant to the subject particularly in a paragraph dedicated to television, surely more than the cartoon series mentions whose relevance has not been put to the test of time. If you have faith in your reasoning toward my edit's inappropriateness for inclusion, how about simply allowing for the matter to be decided by another editor.
The fact that you failed to delete the incorrect "Lost in Space" paragraph until I clarified the mistake of its inclusion demonstrates your agreement that my edit at the very least served to correct what originally appeared, and therefore should not be referred to as vandalism. As for "Gilligan's Island", I'm sure fans of the series would back it up as a most relevant event in the follow-up history to "Robinson Crusoe", as almost anywhere if you simply utter the words "Like Robinson Crusoe", someone around you will automatically follow that up with the show's following lyrics "as primitive as can be." Of course a lot of phonies have been putting the sitcom down for decades, and those who take the book too seriously might follow in that unjust path, thinking their beloved classic is somehow belittled. But such behavior emanates from a delusional denial, for example the way a resident of Tasmania might resent the fact that the most famous thing about their country will always be a Looney Tunes character. Maybe not an idea one takes to heart, but one based on the fact of the matter. And isn't Wikipedia supposed to be composed of facts, regardless of personal feelings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Bring this up on the talk page for the article - as it is not really a personal matter between you and me, but a question of the nature of the article - and other people may well want to put in a word or two. I started a discussion topic there already - just chime in on the end of that. "Sign" everything you say on a talk page with four tilde (~) characters. Don't "revert a revert" without at least saying SOMETHING on the talk page for an article. Sorry if I'm a bit gruff at times - I do a lot of "cleaning up" of REAL vandalism, and it gets to me sometimes! Keeping on friendly terms is actually quite important - but it is NOT the main point of the exercise - building a "popular" but intellectually reasonably respectable encyclopedia is what we're here for. If someone "reverts" an edit of yours, DON'T take it personally. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"S" as a Roman Numeral[edit]

Hi! I didn't have enough room to leave this in the comment, but I could certainly live with not listing "S" as one of the primary modern in-use Roman numerals, at the top of the Roman Numerals section. It is true that it's used extensively in Pharmacy, but I don't know how widespread its use is outside of that field. I suspect many people simply haven't thought about trying to do Roman numeral fractions. (Similarly, "N" is still used for zero sometimes, but I see it even less than S.) Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

"S" is actually the traditional Roman numeral for a half (6/12) - Roman fractions are treated a bit further down the article, as I said in my edit comment. The medieval use of "N" (nullus) for "nothing" - not actually a "zero" is also mentioned. You might want to add something about modern pharmaceutical use of RN in the "modern use" section - including the use of "S" and "N" - but find a reference if you can. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

TFAR notice[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#May_7. I nominated to WP:TFAR an article you had successfully co-nominated at FAC, Albert Ball.

Thank you for your high-level quality improvement contributions to Wikipedia,

Cirt (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Editor of the Week[edit]

Editor of the week barnstar.svg Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for being an expert vandalism fighter and a long time consistent editor. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Soundofmusicals is an excellent candidate for Editor of the Week. Coherent, consistent, and comprehensibile, he clearly understands that the main reason why we are here is to work together to improve the content on Wikipedia and build an intellectually, reasonably respectable, encyclopedia. He has spent over 7 years improving articles and is a bit "gruff" at times, but knows that "Keeping on friendly terms is actually quite important". Does a lot of vandalism cleanup which can be draining. With no time for the drama boards, 75% of his 13000 edits are in article space.

Thanks again for your efforts! Jim Carter (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Farman layout[edit]

I'm not sure that I see the logic of your revert on the Airco DH.1 article. The phrase is wikilinked to pusher configuration, and that is what the phrase means. It is in fact ambiguous: it was originally coined by Mervyn O'Gorman with reference to the Farman III, but by the outbreak of WWI 'Farman' could mean a Shorthorn or a Longhorn - two rather different configurations. I have come across the phrase 'pod and boom' for this configuration, but I don't know how widespread it is.TheLongTone (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

All "Farman layout" types were pushers, but by no means all pushers have had a "Farman" layout. The link from "Farman layout" to "Pusher configuration" may in fact very well be misleading. (Why have it at all?) The term in the sense it was used during the 1912-18 period may very well have been coined by O'Gorman, but it had quite a wide usage, (unlike his designation of all tractor aircraft as "Bleriots" or canard types as "Santos"). It wasn't really tied to the precise form of any given product of the Farman Brothers - nacelles and fore elevators were optional, although the former became general, and the latter died out quite early. "Pod and boom" is quite a good description of the form of a "typical Farman", such as the F.E.2b and the DH.1 (not the mention the "real" Henri and "Horace" Farmans of the early war years) but I haven't seen it in actual use in anything like the way "Farman" is. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
But the phtase 'Farman layout' means nothing inless one is reasonable well-versed in easly aviation history, which is why it needs a wikilink. When I use the phrase its generally in a pre-1914 (or more likely pre-1912) context, and I generally link it to the Farman III, but in this case it's linked to pusher configuration, which is why I thought it made more sense to use that phrase in the article. Certainly there are other pusher configurations, but the pod-and boom is by far the most common. (Incidentally, looking at the pusher configuration article, there is a clear mistake in the first line, since many early rotary-driven pushers actually carried the engine behind the prop)TheLongTone (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The statement remains correct. A rotary engine rotates with the prop on the bearings which are in compression from the force of the propeller, regardless of whether the prop is bolted to the front or the rear of the rotary. The engine is being pushed into the airframe (and the engine mounts), not pulled from them as on a tractor configuration.
Not all Farmans were pushers, and the Shorthorn and Longhorn were merely ones commonly used in the UK, and did not represent any more than a small proportion of the models built or used. Farman layout refers to a biplane with a pusher engine being mounted so as to have the propeller behind the wing and between the booms that support the tail, and more generally (such as with the Royal Aaircraft Factory) as a generic term for any single engine pusher. There is no reason, until someone writes the page, for it to not redirect to pusher configuration.NiD.29 (talk) 06:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sweeney Todd: Revision history[edit]

unfortunatly i am not from Commonwealth of Nations nor USA and i guess u have removed my post not only because my english is bad but you think there is nothing to understand about this reference: .( from "de la maison des marmousets" to "vague plus de cent ans " before king françois 1er letter to allow the place to be used again more than one hundred years after multiple crimes.) Let's forget about this project, don't loose your time here: no way someone good enough in both the old French (XVI / XVII century) and English to be able to complete this section. the wikipédia limit has been reached. Anyway i'm agree with you: my addition is clumsy with the context but as you can see my expression is horrible so I decided to add a short sentence. So finally i apologize for disturbing you cause the truth does not worth to be known by most people.. ps: there are tool to translate some of my censured link in your native language with your favorite browser(google translator for firefox/ie ) and i invite to use it on the following link:

edit: 05/11/2014 00:30 : document has just been removed online 1 min ago. i have not taken a screen shot cause i did not know censor were still alive in the XXI century..good luck to find the original:Jacques du Breul, Le théâtre des antiquitez de Paris, ou est traicté de la fondation des Églises & Chapelles de la Cité, Université, Ville et Diocèse de Paris: comme aussi de l'institution du Parlement, fondation de l'université & collèges & autres choses remarquables. Paris, Chevalier, 1612

--NicoG2 (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No one (I hope) is meaning to unkindly criticise your English. I can (and sometimes do) look up what French Wiki has to say on a subject - I can read French fairly fluently, especially with the occasional help of a dictionary, but there is a VERY big difference between this and writing my own "good" French!(It is at best no better, and I suspect very much worse, than your English). The point is that I would not dream of trying to edit The French language edition of Wikipedia.
To return to the subject at hand - we already do mention the "French Sweeney", and it may be that you have something useful to add - but you are trying to do it in the wrong place, without referring to what is already there on the subject. That, and the poor English, was why the edit couldn't stay in the form it was. Read the article itself properly, so you get an idea of what it already covers, find the relevant bit, edit this in view of of your additional information (assuming there is any) and finally, get someone with better English (preferably a "native" speaker, or someone who has lived for some time in an Anglophone country: most definitely NOT a Google "translator"!!) to correct the English, and we may well have a really useful improvement to the article. I'm glad you put this on the talk page for article as well as here - hopefully someone with a more specific interest in this particular article, and a better command of French than I, may be able to help. And thanks for trying. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

My reading of the relevant passage from the French Wiki article I would render (rather loosely, and through my own very rudimentary French) as follows:

A somewhat similar French story is called the "rue des Marmousets affair". In 1387, in the île de la Cité of Paris, at the corner of the Rue des Marmousets and the Rue des Deux-Hermites, a barber, and his neighbour, a pastry cook, were arrested for the attempted murder of a squire from Touraine. On his arrival in Paris, the young man wanted to have a shave before meeting his family, and narrowly avoided getting his throat cut by the barber. This brought to light a gruesome traffic : the barber was in the habit of cutting the throats of his casual customers, thus supplying his neighbour with ingredients for his pies, which had been famous throughout the city. The two criminals were burned alive outside their own houses.
This story is related by the author Jacques Yonnet in his book Rue des maléfices (Denoël, 1954)

If this could be proved to be authentic, then it would plainly be the source of the original urban legend on which the London Sweeney is based. Otherwise it is equally plainly just another version, in this case translated to Medieval Paris, and dating (on the face of it) from 1954.

--Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

hi, can you just forget : 1) me 2) the fucking jacques yonnet and try to find this book: "Théâtre des antiquités de Paris, où est traité de la fondation des églises et chapelles de la cité, Université, ville et diocèse de Paris, comme aussi de l'institution du Parlement, fondation de l'Université et collèges, et autres choses remarquables," from this autor: There is also this google book link even if it is an edition more recent than mine (1639 instead of 1612) but my link of this book leads you to the barber & pastry cook story if u have got a friend who can read old french. thank u very much --NicoG2 (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Richthofen's death[edit]

I must admit; I have also questioned the reliability of the popular depiction of Richthofen's final moments. The story that he bought his plane to a safe landing appears to have based from the film "Von Richthofen and Brown"; at the end of the film, the German ace succeeds on bringing his plane safely intact to the ground, but it looks "too heroic" to me considereing Manfred´s fatal wounds. I know that soldiers tore the triplane apart, but in photographs of that event taking place, the Fokker appears to have serious damage on its wings. I don´t think people would be responsible for that. The damage on the wings seemed to me more the result of a colision than people having "tore" the wings apart. I mean, isn´t it a bit ironical that, knowing how many bullets a machine gun can fire, it was just one of them which hit Manfred? I find it so hard to believe that, so badly wounded as he was, he managed to bring his aircraft to a safe landing. In fact, I remember having seen some books (such as "The Day the Red Baron Died" by D.M.Titler) stating as well that his plane crashed crashed, and not that he made it in one piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ([[User talk:— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Von Richthofen and Brown is grossly inaccurate (as history) - to be fair it doesn't really claim to be history. In reconstructing what probably happened we have to look at the evidence - in this case R's body. He WAS hit by a single bullet - this quite often happened - a machine gun fires many bullets but they do not always hit a target (especially a moving one) in the same place, or even very close to each other. The problem with the idea of a "safe" landing lies in R's OTHER injuries, which were extensive and quite severe. He had bad "camel face" as British fliers called it (i.e. his face was smashed to a pulp on his gun butts). This didn't happen in "safe" landings. His legs were also badly broken - in fact the (non-medical) eye witnesses though they were wounded with bullets. Again, more likely to have been caused in what we can describe, at best, as a "crash landing" rather than a "safe" landing. There are several excellent books, articles etc in the bibliography at the end of the article - you can probably find some of these, if not on the web then in your local library (plug for my profession). Much better than a rather silly movie, or an idea of what is "popularly supposed". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Major Archibald Reith Low RAF MA FRAeS (1878 - 1969)[edit]

I have restored the edit, as I am ARL's grandson and heard this and other stories from the great man himself.

The pilot of the FB1 that crashed was killed and the design was deemed a failure, despite my grandfather traipsing across an Irish bog to get to the plane, where he dismantled the engine to discover the lack of oil. He was on his own and therefore not witnesssed.

I suppose that the reference to the entry can be me: Mr Giles Duncan Edmondston-Low TD

I have the obituary that my father (Mr Richard Cecil Edmondston-Low CEng, AFRAeS, FBIS (1909-1982) wrote for The Aeronautical Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society, April 1970. If you would like it, you would be welcome to have it. Wikipedia won't publish an obituary, even if the RAeS released the copyright, but I leave the rest up to you.

You can contact me on


The above (with a little detective work) turns out to be about the Vickers F.B.5 article. It seems to me to be common sense (perhaps I am just old-fashioned in imagining there is such a thing), but DO "digitally sign" your posts with four tildes "~" signs so we know who we're talking to - and do give a clear indication of the article we're talking about. Obituaries (and other "anecdotal" sources) are NOT "encyclopedic" - this has nothing directly to do with copyright as such, it's just that they are notoriously subject to error: including errors of transmission, not to mention the tendency for human memory to muddle different real (and imaginary) events. Without going onto great detail, The event described seems on the face of it highly unlikely. Unlikely events do (rarely) happen, but they cry out for a "reliable source". Independent (and documented) confirmation in fact. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry[edit]

To you and yours


FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

And you, old bean! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Valzer delle candele[edit]

Hello, it is not true that my update is silly season" practical joke. My updated is with source, not only the Italian newspaper (as you wrote). is not a newpaper. In any case, there is written in many books and scores that Davide Rizzio is composer of "Valzer delle candele": for example in Piemonte magico e misterioso by Renzo Rossotti (edited by Newton Compton, Rome). Here you can read all history about Davide Rizzio. If you do not know a thing, this doesn't mean that it is false.--Vito.Vita (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but it just ain't so. Auld Lang Syne is not a "waltz" anyway, so either Valzer delle candele is misnamed (a waltz in 4/4 time?) or it is not the same melody as Auld Lang Syne". Published scores often misattribute music and do not constitute "reliable sources" in them selves - nor does a personal or commercial website. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, there are many documents. For example, in this you can read: "la melodia, che va tradizionalmente sotto il titolo di “Auld lang syne”, ha origine torinese, ed il compositore fu esattamente Davide Riccio (o Rizzio),

liutista di origine nobile, nato a Pancalieri (Torino) nel 1533, che con il fratello Giuseppe si trasferì ad Edimburgo alla corte di Maria Stuarda". On this you can read "Valzer delle candele (D. Rizzio)", on this "va ricordato che “Auld lang syne” (da noi più nota come “Valzer delle Candele”, forse il canto più famoso e tradotto al mondo) fu motivo portato forse dal Piemonte alla Scozia dal musico Davide Riccio o David Rizzio (Pancalieri 1533 – Edimburgo 1566) alla corte di Maria Stuarda". On James Last record of 1984 James Last in Scotland there is written: Authors: Davide Rizzio, Robert Burns In every Italian concert whit this song there is Davide Rizzio as composer (an example: You can read Davide Rizzio'history in this site: You can read song history in this site Regards and good new year's day --Vito.Vita (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Fuochi d'artificio.gif

Dear Soundofmusicals,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

WrestleMania & Roman numerals[edit]

Not sure if there is a single reference that would cover the entire history of WrestleMania, but each individual one is listed on the WrestleMania page. The first one obviously had no number, of the rest WrestleMania 2, WrestleMania 13, WrestleMania 2000, WrestleMania 21, WrestleMania 22, and WrestleMania 23 did not use Roman numerals while Wrestlemania X-Seven and Wrestlemania X8 used a hybrid form. Two others listed on the WrestleMania page as having unique names are actually linked to pages that use Roman numerals. --Khajidha (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually if WrestleMania's use of Roman Numerals has been a bit inconsistant (in the sense that they sometimes use them and sometimes use "standard" numerals instead) then this may in fact not be very notable - most modern uses of Roman Numerals are like that in fact. Think of (analogue) clock faces, for instance - ordinary numbers are actually much more common, and sometimes we don't use actual numbers at all. Perhaps we need a little note at the head of the section? Although this kind of generalisation is even harder to get a speciifc reference for. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

March 2015[edit]

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Aladdin. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Calling out vandalism is one thing, but there is no need to call out the editor as a "person with mind of a tiny child". Ahecht (TALK
) 22:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Remove/rework "the most widely known fighter pilot of all time"[edit]

One of the opening sentences on Manfred von Richthofen- "He remains perhaps the most widely known fighter pilot of all time,"- is particularly clumsy. I'm (currently) going to change it to "one of the most famous aviators in history," for now, to remove the absurd, the redundant, and the flimsy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Simple truth - no need to change at all. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd agree...and he is known as a fighter pilot, not an aviator. It's bean counting, but I'd gues that the Wright Brothers, Lindberg & possible Amelia Earhardt are better known in generalTheLongTone (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
And they're not fighter aces, are they? The IP was upset because his other wonderful "improvements" didn't make it. I answered him properly (and, I thought, with great restraint, on the talk page for the article. Sadly, an administrator has made an unnecessary "compromise" version. Suppose they were just too busy to actually look at the particular case rather than the general principle. Never mind - you can't win them all - and I've been getting into trouble just lately for "not suffering fools gladly", certainly not worth the bother of fighting over it. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

New article[edit]

Take a look at Differences between islam and the bahai faith. The page is distinctly anti-encyclopedic, and in my mind should be deleted. Any thoughts? Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

"NON-encyclopedic" rather than "anti" perhaps. Rather well-informed than otherwise (speaking as a Baha'i, with a less than comprehensive knowledge of Islam) - and well referenced (in a scriptural sense) but more suitable as a chapter in a frankly apologetic book or pamphlet than an attempt at a dispassionately informative article in a work of reference. In particular, I don't like the basic idea of "one religion in the light of another", at least not in an encyclopedia, especially of the "anyone can edit it" kind. Imagine if a sincere and devout Muslim (much less a rabid anti-Baha'i) went to work on it! Essentially I can't see what could be done to make this article appropriate here (i.e. in Wikipedia), so yes (with not a little regret) I tend to agree that it needs to be deleted. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Yikes. Agreed. --Smkolins (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Soundofmusicals. You have new messages at Crazycomputers's talk page.
Message added 23:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Chris (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Chris - I'll never be rude about admins again. (Not that I ever HAVE been mind you, but...).

Ruritanian romance[edit]

I have removed the reference to The Gondoliers as WP:OR. Not only is the reference uncited, but I doubt that The Gondoliers follows the pattern of Ruritanian romance – it is a satire, not a true romance – and, *moreover*, you have not cited any reference that says that the operetta has anything to do with Ruritanian romance. In addition, The Gondoliers was not the first opera set in a fictional kingdom. Lots of very old stories, fairy tales and operas are, for example Cinderella. Rossini wrote an opera on this story in 1817 La Cenerentola, and that was not the first. Sorry! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You're not sorry at all - in fact I'm sure you enjoyed the opportunity. Never mind, I should have known what to expect. Of course the Gondoliers doesn't conform to a Rutanian "template". What I was hinting at was the precise reverse. The Goldoliers was, I believe, still running at the time Robert Louis Stephenson was writing Prince Otto, and even if he wasn't influenced at all, but brought together his basically similar plotline by the purest coincidence (that kind of thing does happen occasionally) - then (starting perhaps with Hope and The Prisoner of Zenda) there are lots of little "proto-Ruritanian" twists in the Gilbert topsy-turvey plot that I don't think we can just put down to coincidence. Since the whole notion of a "genre" novel is tied down to not being terribly original we can at least express little surprise when the "influences" come from several directions. Never mind - I'll go across to the article a little later and salvage what I can from the mess. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Richthofen at Find a Grave and son of Gunner Ernest Twycross[edit]

I have just added the date the link to Richthofen's memorial on Find a Grave as well as extracts from the letter by Twycross' son that Richthofen was trying to say something to Twycross. I know that anonymous edits are regarded as more likely to be malicious - this is not always fair but it's the result of long experience. I have also added this on the article's talk page, although I probably should have asked first, sorry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

So organise yourself a bit and get an account! And recognise that it's not only "malicious" edits (or ones that their posters regard as "funny") that need to go and get reverted - but also ones that don't really fit in the article, or are even entered into the wrong article. Also of course - remember that this is an encyclopedia - and take great care that all your edits actually make sense, and go with what's already there!! Find a source when you can, naturally, but it is much better to enter something unsourced that to invent a source (as has been done by people who should have known better). When in doubt, bring things up on the talk page first. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I also hate to burst your bubble but as for you saying that I may open an account, I am not that skilled at knowing passwords or usernames so the only way I can edit is just as anonymous sadly.

I have also added your reply to me on the article's talk page, although I probably should have asked first, sorry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 9:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fokker Scourge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Western Front (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Fixed! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ode of Remembrance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lest we forget (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Richthofen maths[edit]

Hi there. Are you sure about this? You are a very reliable editor for whom I have a lot of respect, AND I don't usually trust my maths, but I think the IP might be right. In mph: typical ground speed 75mph. One third of that is 25. Two thirds is 50. Add 50 to 75 and you have 125, his assumed speed that day. In kmh: typical ground speed 120kmh. One third of that is 40. Two thirds is 80. Add 80 to 120 and you have 200, his assumed speed that day. Am I missing something here? I wouldn't be surprised, so please don't shout at me! :) Cheers DBaK (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I just whacked the numbers in the calculator and it came out right - but if the numbers were put in wrong - which they might have been, maths not being my long suit really... But remember the numbers are hypothetical anyway - we are assuming a prevailing wind of a certain compass heading and velocity - and a wind blowing the "opposite direction", at "about the same speed". The real point is that 1918 vintage aeroplane's groundspeed was very dependant on the wind - the maths, with its very much "assumed" numbers, is only there to make that point really. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, and thank you for the reply. I know that they are made-up numbers and I take your point entirely about that. But, if I'm right, then the IP was still correct to change 60% to two thirds; despite their madeupness surely the relationship between the numbers should be correct? It just seems odd to change it back, despite the vagueness, to something which appears to be wrong. I'm alarmed to hear that you don't consider yourself strong on maths either - do you mind if I correct it again, or take it to the Talk page, or both, or something?? Cheers DBaK (talk) 11:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Leave it up to you - as I said - looking at it superficially the original number looked right. If, after doing it formally rather than talking it through as you have, you still think the IP was correct than by all means change it. I might have a look at the original source, I think I have it somewhere. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

checking some recent edits[edit]

See if you agree with [1], [2], [3]. I noticed the editor redid the entry in one case without reverting, like trying to be quiet. Thoughts? --Smkolins (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I hope you're not being a little over-sensitive on this one. The fact that it IS an Iranian (strictly Persian) "thing" is something that nay not be something that needs DE-stressing at a time when the persecutors and enemies are more concerned with putting out lies that it is a Western (or even British) plot to "destabilise Islam". The person who did these things may have had motives either one way or the other - we should be concerned (as Wiki editors) with the facts themselves rather than other editor's motives. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Which is why Category:Religion in Iran makes sense. This is, for example, a categorization like say, Abrahamic and making it an Iranian religion argues against it being Abrahamic at a certain level. And it is indisputable that the religion is far beyond Iran, however much it is in Iran. The same would go for calling it an Category:Indian religions even though by far the largest concentration of Baha'is is in India doesn't make sense. --Smkolins (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Whatever you say. You asked me for comment and I told you what I thought. I don't buy into "categories" arguments as a matter of principle. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Well I don't disagree categories have limited usefulness. For example it is clear the views on God transcend Abrahamic and respect for Dharmic religions is part of the Baha'i Faith too. Yet no scholarly category seems to allow for it. But to me the fact that categories are of limited usefulness doesn't mean, to me, to ignore using them as best one can, and that they can be use badly. --Smkolins (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
You're probably right, but I still prefer to leave them to others (e.g. you). Old cowardy custard. :) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)