User talk:Soundofmusicals

Concerning the Thousand and One Nights

Dear Soundofmusicals: I will not edit the article, but I felt I had to tell a righteous fellow like you that, as I'm sure you're aware, the Arab scholar Al-Masudi, mentions the Hezar Afsan as being the oldest version of the Thousand and One Nights. Surely this carries some weight. I am also sure that you are aware of the fact that the Arab invaders and later, the Mongols, had a tendency to burn libraries if not entire cities. Perhaps that is why there are no Early Medieval manuscripts of the Thousand and One Nights remaining. A true historian looks at all aspects of a situation before giving lectures. However I do thank you for your efforts to gaurd the Thousand and One Nights Article. (Kaveh94 (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC))

Inclusion of a Heinkel factory drawing of the He 277 for Wikipedia

Dear Soundofmusicals:

The PIPE Here once more...the Manfred Griehl/Joachim Dressel authored book...

• Griehl, Manfred and Dressel, Joachim. Heinkel He 177 - 277 - 274. Shrewsbury, UK: Airlife Publishing. ISBN 1-85310-364-0.

...that I have, on the series of Heinkel heavy bombers, that deals with the He 177, and details the more advanced He 274 (two built) and the aircraft project this page describes (He 277) has been a gold mine of information on the entire series that the 177 started...but I DO have a submission question...

...would a scanned-in Heinkel factory drawing of the He 277 (from my copy of the book) be allowed for use here at Wikipedia?

The involved drawing was carefully scanned to ONLY have content in it that would have been on the original Heinkel "Typenblatt" drawing, and NONE of the book's authored text (or other graphic material) is in the scan. Where the drawing was Heinkel property during the war, but could, curiously still be considered "copyrighted material" of the current EADS corporate entity? This is because as Heinkel was absorbed, via a series of corporate mergers through the last half of the 20th century, into the EADS European defense aerospace conglomerate, that World War II Heinkel drawing could still be considered EADS property by some means.

Also, that page here at Wikipedia on what constitutes what can be considered "public domain" concerning German WW II images (it's the first entry under the "Example cases" subheading there) affect the ability to have up at Wikipedia for a graphic image, anything that would have originally been the property of a now-nonexistent German aviation corporation from 65 years ago, even one whose corporate identity is now part of EADS?

I've also got two other scans of this type from the same book, which show the alternative cockpit design of the He 177B development of the Greif, as well as a factory three view of the He 177B V101 aircraft, both scanned and edited to have NOTHING in them but what the Heinkel factory's drafters would have drawn themselves. These are unique images, and might possibly also be usable, but could I be running into that "possible EADS ownership of old Heinkel WW II aircraft drawings" roadblock with those, too???

I'd like a little help here...would those scans, in any possible way, be allowable for documentation for both the He 177 and 277 pages here at Wikipedia?

Thanks in advance,

The PIPE (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Chaser's War on Everything

Hello, what a great day :)

Remember dates don't get linked and we aren't supposed to use contractions like "couldn't" in the articles. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes - but there were a great many more links deleted that those! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Gilbert and Sullivan

Hi. I saw that you rearranged the images in the G&S project's flagship article. I don't think we should put the images on both sides of text. In my browser, it squeezed the text into a small column, and I don't think the image guidelines permit it. Plus it clustered all the images together at the top of the section, and it is better to spread them out. I don't think the images are too far from the relevant text. Feel free to discuss this on the article's talk page, but I put it back the way it was until we can reach a consensus. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Bolko von Richthofen

After becoming thoroughly confused I have come round to the view that it is almost certain that there are in fact two Bolko von Richthofens - only distantly related to each other - one was the famous Red Baron's little brother - the other an eminent archaeologist with far-right views. I am far from being certain of all this as the sources we ought to be able to rely on are muddled. So far as I can see we (probably) need a disambiguation page. Any thoughts? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was the case (two Bolko von Richtofens) from reading the Wikipedia page in German. I apologize for fighting. I'm glad you saw the difference as well. I'm not sure where to gather other sources, but I can see if I can find some. Thank you for writing on my talk page about this. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 08:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Linking

Hi. I noticed you restored a link to Sopwith which I removed from the article Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.5, only a few words away from a link to Sopwith Camel. Per WP:OVERLINK, we prefer the more precise link over the more generic one; Sopwith is actually a redirect to Sopwith Aviation Company, and the Sopwith Camel page contains prominent links to the parent company. Can you please reconsider whether links like this actually add value, or if they are distracting to our readers? Thanks in advance, --John (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

In the crosshairs

Re this, a couple of things: the overclaiming should be mentioned in "The Fighter Ace" (Flight, Fall 1996); the Brits had a system of locating all downed aircraft, to prevent looting (IIRC), but didn't use it to confirm kills... (I wish I could recall where I read it, tho. :( As usual. :( ). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I have no doubt it was to prevent souvenir hunters taking bits precious for intel. What I don't get is why they didn't use the sentry postings as a help in confirming FC scores. (This was rather like what ROC did in re AVG; they didn't get paid their $500 "kill bounty" unless the Chinese could find the wreck...) As I think of it, it's either in Deighton's Fighter or Allen's Who Won the Battle of Britain. In any case, I hope this is of help. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

File:Christmas Barnstar (aviation).jpg

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

Reverting changes

What silly BS are you referring to with this:

(cur) (prev) 22:13, 30 December 2009 Soundofmusicals (talk | contribs | block) (34,194 bytes) (Undid revision 334969927 by Nickshanks (talk)Please cut out this silly BS) (undo)

I have re-inserted the change, because it prevents people thinking that Burns *created* the poem when all he did was write it down (as he himself, and the article, states). I am not part of any argument you may be having with someone else about this article, as today is my first visit. I therefore can present a neutral and balanced opinion on the matter. I assumed it was causing a ruckus due to the comments in the source, so I read the whole of the History section before deciding to go ahead with the change.

If you have an issue with this, raise it with me directly rather than reverting it again, and I will further explain the rational. — Nicholas (reply) @ 19:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

3RR Warning, and civility

Just as a heads-up, you're at 3RR on Auld Lang Syne. Baseball Bugs has already started a thread on the talk page, please continue the discussion there. Also, referring to another user's good faith discuss attempts as "shit" [1] isn't very civil, please try and get along with everyone here. Good faith discussion goes a long way towards helping to get consensus. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Although it was I who moved Baseball Bugs' comment to the discussion page - where it should have been put in the first place. "Shit" was indeed used carelessly - I failed to consider that Bugs would probably see the edit summary if he was watching my talk page. I should have also considered that it is a much worse word in some dialects of English than it is in my own. To get back to the point, this is a VERY silly argument - and the kind of thing that bedevils this particular article - I reckon it should be locked completely through the silly season (say the beginning of December to to end of January) every year. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

reply

There's an answer for you on my Talk page. Thanks. Amphitryoniades (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Show Boat

Hello. I'm just back from a wikibreak and trying to catch up. It looks like MM reverted all the new changes. Do you think there was anything in the new edits worth saving? Any new refs, for example? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Basically MM did the right thing, I fear. On the whole, unless the editor concerned gets the idea of Wiki (it took me a while!) and comes back with something a little less egotistical and more reasoned I'd mark his work down as a dead loss - which is a shame really, as I take his point that the Show Boat article reads like a high school essay in places. He also had a point about at least one reference that could be irrelevant. Some editors (alas) have a way of either manufacturing references, or quoting good ones that have little or no bearing on the matter in hand. Some references that were once apposite remain in situ as the text about them crumbles away, and other (less relevant) matter takes its place. It is sad to lose anyone with the necessary application to track this sort of thing down. I certainly haven't the time nor the inclination to go through the version as he left it, but it may be a salutary experience for someone, even if no good comes of it! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Biggles Again

I have made comments on the state of the racism section of this article. I thought you might be interested to have a look at some stage. I'm concerned that editors who evidently have no understanding of the definitions of racism consistently edit the article to present the books in what they see as a better light. Biggles really appears to be a sacred cow to some subjective eyes, and the results are clearly deleterious to the article. I welcome your input in particular here. Centrepull (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem, as ever, is NPOV. We are all racist about someone, I fear - as an Australian I tend to have negative feelings about Poms and Yanks, especially white ones. The black ones are mostly OK, mind you, but even them... So long as I recognise this nonsense for what it is and don't let it influence my writing (for Wiki or anyone else)!!!. The facts are, in short, that at least three Biggles books are inexcusably racist (as reading for modern children, at least) - this needs mentioning (and it is) and the books need "naming" (they are). A good many others have casual remarks about mixed race people being inherently second-rate, especially if the "black side predominates" - this seems to be an airing of Johns' own little pet prejudice and is also petty inexcusable (in any context, actually). On the other hand there are instances of quite an "advanced" attitude for the time that (in the interests of NPOV) must get a mention (and do). Attitudes in a community at a particular time ARE RELEVANT - to say they are not, and there is some kind of absolute standard of racial "non-prejudice" that is utterly timeless and to which all writers past and present must (retrospectively!) follow is in itself highly prejudiced, and is positively vicious in its unfairness (to put it another way, it is every bit as ignorant, stupid and nasty as most other kinds of prejudice). The past is a different country, as a great writer has remarked.

While there is probably a good case for hacking away at the section, and I will do so a bit later - this section (while I agree it needs to avoid whitewashing over unpleasant facts) also MUST be fair and balanced - nothing to do with sacred moo-moos at all. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Royal Aircraft Establishment

I noted and understood your reversion of my recent edit to the RAE article. It's a good article, a really interesting subject, and you've made some important contributions to it.

I was trying to improve upon the usage of the word "latterly." Do you think this is the clearest expression of the RAE's current status?

I'll leave it to you; thanks again for your work.

Best,

KHamsun (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

"Latterly" is a little literary - how does the current rewriting suit do you think?--Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• That was a masterful edit! Great job, Soundofmusicals.

KHamsun (talk) 09:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No. 29 Squadron RAF

I can understand your last edit to this article. That glaring scarlet wasteland of aces' names is offensive to the eye. However, articles will be written for these aces (most likely by myself). Listing all the notable aces in squadron history supplies a link, and chases away the horrid "orphan" tag.

I have reverted your edit as part of my effort to keep the aviation wing of the wiki-orphanage unpopulated. Please do not be offended.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a matter of me being offended. And while I agree that a lot of red ink is unsightly that is not the main point either. More a matter of notability - an air ace is not necessarily notable enough for a wiki article - in fact unless he has an exceptionally large "tally" (considering time and place) it is reasonable to expect him to have a real notability independent of his actual "acehood". Many WWI aces (both sides) went to the front pretty well straight from school, shot down their eight, nine or ten enemy aircraft, and were either killed before they had a chance to make any further impact on this world, or survived the conflict to lead postwar lives of more or less complete obscurity. They will never have a wiki article, any more than you or I will. I take your point about orphans, but on the other hand - when one adds a new article, even a stub, it is sensible to add wikilinks both ways at that time rather than rely on "red links" waiting in the ether to take up the slack. Never mind - not important enough to get heated about - I'll leave it up to you to either delete the "non-notable" names altogether, leave them there but remove the "link" brackets, or, if you really believe there is enough notability (and enough published information) to warrant an article in the future, leave them as they are. I suspect in the current red desert there may even be particular names in all three categories. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Actually, there is the proviso that any individual honored by their government is considered notable by Wikipedia standards. All of the aces in question qualify under that standard. That is not to say all aces qualify, however. While vetting the names for this project, I "bumped" several aces from the list for lack of proof of their acedom. I am closing out all the remainder (probably 300 or 400) that were not decorated as being non-notable. Those that are left qualify for bios.

So that has been my aim all along--to have a bio for every notable ace. I did not know about, nor count on, the orphan tag. When that was sprung on me, I began linking aces to home squadrons to alleviate orphandom. And I take your point about linking as you go; in future, I might use that method. However, I don't feel like spinning my wheels defending orphans against deletion; it seems simpler to deal with the orphan problem from the front, rather than chasing after it.

What's a guy to do? Well, I intend to continue churning out basic articles for others to expand and improve. Even a stub on a subject beats a blank, and editors seem more likely to expand a stub than to start from scratch.

And incidentally, a lot of guys first got the crap shot out of themselves in the ground forces before going flying. The majority of them were not the ingenuous dewy schoolboys of legend.

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

---

File source problem with File:EarlyDH4.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:EarlyDH4.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Missing Man Formation

I added my comment, and did a cursory check on the individual in question, see:for good bedtime reading]. FwiW, I also have Sfan00 on my case, does this deletionist ever sleep? Bzuk (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Archival photo identification

One of the problems I encountered with a battery of templated "File source problem" pile-ons is that all of the files were elderly ones which I simply listed as PD because they were obviously taken by a government employee, either in the UK, US or other. I now add photos using a standard upload form that has the requisite information. In changing the edit note to the form that bots now recognize, it seemed to cure the problem? Probably the only reason why your original photo would be considered suspect, is that the ever present bots have been programmed to look for certain information and when it isn't there or not in the place it thinks it should be, then off it goes, tagging the photo. The tag then inevitably leads to one of the army of deletionists and their attendant removal bots. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC).

Red Baron

Please note: the 80 kill total was not confirmed, either by the Germans or the Allies. Infact, the 'confirmed' total is 73, plus 30-40 further unconfirmed 'kills'. The addition of the word "confirmed" is in complete contradition to the sources in the article. The kill section alone had already pointed to the fact that by no means were 80 'confirmed'. Dapi89 (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

80 kills were officially confirmed in Luftstreitkräfte records. Really don't know what is the point you are getting at. Other lower (and higher!) figures have been suggested by later historians working from official British loss records - this is covered by a separate section further down - and incidentally has nothing to do with "confirmation" in the sense we are talking about here. Not all sources agree - some websites and cheap paperbacks purvey the most incredible nonsense about the Red Baron. One is reminded of Mark Twain on the subject of Shakespeare "There are thousands of books about Shakespeare - nearly all of them mad". We stick to the best sources here, and avoid empty speculation. Please bring this up in discussion and aim for a consensus if you disagree rather than reverting. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Your 'logic' is flawed. You won't get consensus on this. I contribute towards all German ace articles (WW2 related) and the neutral wording is "claimed". It is absurd to attribute the notion of a "confirmed" kill to the side making the claim. Dapi89 (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Since all you can do is repeat and revert, I can't do very much except repeat myself - the victories WERE "confirmed" by Luftstreitkräfte records!! - it is important to note this to distinuish them from "claimed". Of course this does not mean that the claims were 100% accurate - but then in this sense we haven't a "confirmed victory total for anyone, have we? In the the interests of reconciliation and getting on to more important things we'll omit the word, but the other stuff you added to the lead is unnecessary here as (to once more repeat myself) covered further down the article. There is no "British" or "Allied" confirmations of anything. (A third repeat - will you read what I am actually saying please, to avoid having to repeat myself again!!)--Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, I think I've done more than that. The reply above is a riddle of contraditions right ontop of each other. It seems you're trying to defend the indefensible. The point is that the German military were in no position to confirm anything. They can only accept the claim. So you are wrong to say the victories WERE "confirmed" by Luftstreitkräfte records. Fortunately, you contradict yourself to the correct view Of course this does not mean that the claims were 100% accurate. This is telling because it completely defeats the idea that there can be "confirmed kills". And you are absolutely right, but then in this sense we haven't a "confirmed victory total for anyone, have we. This is the sad truth of aerial warfare, particularly when dealing with large total claims. Dapi89 (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

We have obviously been arguing about the precise meaning of "confirmed" - semantics strikes again! Confirmation (in your sense) by one's own side is doubtful, confirmation by the other side is totally absurd - I take it we're agreed about that? SO what word do we use to distinguish a fighter pilot's own "claims" from what he managed to convince his superiors he actually scored? On the whole German air force official confirmation of kills in WW1 weren't too far off (especially compared with WW2 figures!!) - they are often "confirmed" (in a totally different but still far from conclusive sense) by the usually full and accurate loss records kept by the British (but unfortunately for historians NOT by the Central Powers, nor, for that matter, the other Allies). It is certainly unfair to suggest that they could "only" accept the claims - since at least 30 of the Baron's claims were rejected! I suppose "officially credited" is neutral (in that it makes no assumption about accuracy) - my point was that "confirmed" in the usual sense of the word is pretty much synonymous anyway. Now that the dust has settled - I may have over reacted - attacks on accepted scores, however big a grain of salt we may be inclined to take them with, are bound to be speculation, and no subject for an objective encyclopedia. And this particular article gets attacked by one shot know-it-alls quite a lot, as the history reveals. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is as it should be now. Perhaps I should have mentioned from the off that I've been involved in a few verbal scuffles over claiming that has led to the article Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories. I've defended the claims of Hans-Joachim Marseille and Erich Hartmann against those that would seek to discredit these people unjustly. So I am not an anti-German campaigner. But at the same time, if reasonably reliable sources bring the totals into dispute, then the idea of any pilot having an indisputable 'confirmed' total becomes a possibility. Dapi89 (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

My outrageous claim

I knew when I typed the sentence about Jasta 2 "that it has an arguable claim to being the most influential aircraft squadron in history" I was making a tall claim, and one that would provoke discussion. I wrote the sentence somewhat in hopes someone would help me thrash this out. I am glad it's you; you're knowledgeable.

My reasoning for the claim is that the jasta was founded as a working laboratory of the fighter tactics that Boelcke originated, and those tactics were the basis of fighter aviation at least through the Korean war and the advent of missiles. Jasta 2 was a blueprint for fighter squadrons of the future. Reading the names of the aces who emerged from the squadron is like reading a cross-section of the later leadership of the Luftstreitkräfte, as well as a sampling of the Nazi high command of WWII. In short, Jasta 2 was the birthplace of successful fighter aviation.

However, I concede that the claim may have been premature, as I had not yet supplied the backing for the claim.

I anticipate hearing your views on this. I think they will be helpful.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no strong disagreement with a lot of what you say, although it is a bit shallow, and seems to assume that the Luftstreitkräfte had a monopoly on "successful fighter aviation". To add a little (highly informed) POV of my own - the failure of the German fighter arm to establish lasting air superiority over the western front meant that the allied artillery (relying as it did very heavily on direction from the air) was able to maintain the ascendency that defeated the great German Spring Offensive of 1918, and thus lost the Germans WWI. The German High Command seems to me to have been so obsessed with the "scoreboard" aspect of air warfare that they lost sight of just how important it had actually become, and ended up letting the allies (especially the British) have their own way in the air far too much. Mind you, I don't think this belongs in Wikipedia either! It's as least as POV as your comments (if not worse).

If you were writing a magazine article or even a book about the subject, as opposed to an encyclopedia article I'd say "go for your life" - nothing wrong with a little colourful POV in its proper place! You'll notice I edited the bit you added to the lead rather than reverting it - what I left in is interesting fact, from which the reader may well draw his own conclusions. What I cut is basically POV, and inappropriate in this context. And no - I don't think the problem is that we need more "backing" - its just that we don't say that kind of thing in an encyclopedia article! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

---

I hold no brief for German aviation superiority during WWI. We agree that German grand strategy--which is by definition an overall plan for victory--did not encompass a successful use of air power. I do believe I could find sources to cite that will say the same thing. By ceding air superiority to their opponents, Germany lost the war (in my POV). And I could probably unearth a source that agrees with that. Certainly, I have read more than one text that backs your POV about the German's defensive posture in the air.

However, Boelcke's invention of fighter tactics, his concept of the flying circus, his use of early warning systems, and his nurturance of such a number of aces/squadron leaders/future generals gave Jasta 2 an inordinate impact on history. His attempt to establish local air superiority shows that he had a more realistic view of strategy than the Junker generals.

And now let me spring the question hanging in the atmosphere, delicately ignored: If Jasta 2 is not the most influential squadron in military aviation history, then which squadron is? (In your POV).

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I will not attempt to nominate a rival to Jasta 2 as "influential" (although there are a few, even among the other Jastas). Personally my POV is that your POV about Jasta 2 (and its foundation commanding officer) while far from totally unjustified, is just a little over the top. British fighter pilots (and some German ones too, to be fair) were often much bolder than Boelcke would have approved - and the "neck-or-nothing" approach certainly DID have its successes. Boelcke's dicta form an important part of the evolution of fighter (especially fighter vs fighter) tactics but they are hardly the whole story - and anyway most experienced pilots (on both sides) sooner or later came to broadly similar conclusions for themselves. My point is that it is better to stick to verifiable fact than leap to grandiose conclusions (OR as well as POV) - this IS an encyclopedia. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Not to worry, my tuneful friend. I intend to accumulate facts and allow them to illustrate any conclusions. Whatever the conclusions. For instance, I have just become aware that the finger four formation does NOT stem from Boelcke, as it came into use in the 1930s, which knocks out one of the things I was counting on proving. However, I do supply a source for all my facts.

My error this time was writing from the lead down, counting on being able to buttress my audacious claim as I filled out the article. Instead, I should have reverted to working on the lead after fleshing out the body of the article. If I had done that, and piled up the evidence that proved my point, we would be having a different discussion about your deletion of my statement.

I am a bit puzzled as to the relevance of your comment about the boldness of individual pilots. For instance, Ball's daring but idiosyncratic solo tactics brought him terrific success, but seem not to have been duplicated by other aces, and certainly are not adaptable to entire flights or squadrons. Boelcke used Jasta 2 to originate the formation tactics that basically put an end to the era of the freebooting solo aces; for instance, when Frank Luke popped up in 1918 as a solo virtuoso, he lasted less than three weeks. For that matter, Werner Voss fell to a British formation.

So either I can prove my statement by either piling up the facts, or by finding a reliable source that agrees with my conclusions, or I can forget it. Either way, my intent is to follow the truth.

Thanks for the feedback. I needed it.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

---

General boldness, and even taking advantage of your enemy's caution to do unexpected things like diving into a large formation with a much smaller one (or even on your own!), stalking an enemy from below, even at the risk of being spotted and pounced upon - never being the first to turn away from a head on attack (wait for the other fellow to turn, he will eventually and then you will have him!) were all typical of what you might call the "Ball" school of fighting tactics (allthough I would not claim that Ball "invented" that approach). These were all absolute anathema to the Boelcke approach of avoiding unnecessary risks (again, be cautious of attributing everything in the famous "dicta" to Boelcke personally) - only attacking when you had a clear advantage and so on. As well as Voss, there were other German pilots of the "Ball" school, among them Lothar Von Richthofen, who actually survived the war.

As for formation flying - the British (and French) both had dedicated fighter squadrons before the advent of the Jastas. While these typically flew in small patrols (4 fighters or less) - they already had up to 18 aircraft (The British squadron was larger than the German staffel) to fly larger formations and occasionally did, even in 1916. Boelcke's first fighter "formations" consisted of himself and two or three "pupils" to whom he demonstrated the techniques of shooting down a particular allied type.

"Formation" flying (by fighters anyway) at this stage certainly didn't involve anything as organised as "finger four" or even the tight "vee" formations beloved of the 20s and 30s RAF fighter squadrons. Casualties, which were quite high among experienced pilots and at a level we would consider catastrophic among beginners meant that the average standard of piloting in most squadrons was very low. The typical 1916 fighter flew most of the time only a few kph above a (typically vicious) stall. Pulling back on the stick to regain height lost (by a simple "bump" or a moment's lapse of concentration) and regain formation cut this margin and left you near stalling speed, with your formation pulling away from you. The only way to catch up was to dive sharply and try to zoom back into your proper position (much harder than it sounds). In fact "stragglers" from larger formations were common, and often pounced on. Add to all that the difficulty of piloting the typical 1916-18 fighter accurately anyway (controls were very poorly harmonised by later standards - typically elevators were very sensitive, while ailerons were generally rather ineffective). The end result of all this is that the typical fighter formation of the first world war was nothing more than a loose, quite widely spaced "gaggle".

Formations (in the later sense of the word) were on the other hand often flown by bomber pilots. The aircraft involved were more stable, making formation flying much easier, and they had more to gain (mutual protection by neighbouring rear gunners).

Look - I have rabbited on at great length and probably to little advantage. What I actually meant to say is that by all means read widely (and well, most aviation books are trash and even the good ones are not entirely free of errors) and get all the background you can - but try to avoid sweeping generalisations, either your own, or those of authors of glossy aviation books. The truth is very often more subtle and elusive than you might think. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

'However'

I sort of understand where you are coming from, but in this case one must take a close look at the sentence itself, not so much the whole paragraph. See, while the preceding sentence talks about how he wasn't a spectacular pilot, the sentence in question opens with praise of his abilities as a tactican and squadron leader:

"In addition to being a fine combat tactician and squadron leader, however, he was a superb marksman, and in combat he viewed his aircraft as a platform from which to fire his guns."

Putting 'however' in the middle of the sentence is a bit clumsy and doesn't sound quite right, to me at least. However, I do think that it would work better if it were to be placed at the beginning of the sentence, since it then does not imply his marksmanship contrasting with his tactical and leadership skills. I have edited the article accordingly and I think you'll find this compromise suitable. Regards, Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Which was how it was in the first place - perhaps I didn't explain myself very well - ah well, all's well that ends well. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sharing interests

Hi, it is always nice to find people sharing interests, i won't be long:

• 1. You are not alone in your 6th point on user page.
• 2. Seems the Biggles article is having some trouble with the pictures.
• 3. Before removing the ", however," in Manfred's article i asked in the #wikipedia-en-help channel (as i am not an english native speaker). It's not an excuse tho so get this line as a kind of apologize.
• 4. I've created the whole aces list for the catalan wikipedia (language spoken in Catalonia). I'd say it is more a less as big as Tasmania. And i am now also wanting to create all the aces one by one to get more informed. I have obviously started with Manfred's which i've been translating from your english version (congratulations at this point!). After your great base i am thinking of improving it with info taken from other sources such as pbs, i'd be glad to share.
• 5. Just someone admiring your work from the other side of the globe!

--Mezod (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Always nice to hear from a fellow WW1 "nut".

The Richthofen article is very far from being "my" article - it was already there some time before I started on Wiki, and has been constructively edited by many others besides me since. It IS a very polished and well referenced one (much better than most WW1 articles in Wiki) and you could very well use a more or less straight translation for your Catalan one. Be careful about "improvements" - especially "additional facts" - the people who have edited this article have between them probably read almost everything that has ever been written on the subject - what they haven't included has probably been left out on purpose, either because its accuracy or notability is doubted.

Don't worry about "however" - the end result was probably slightly clearer, anyway.

Yes, someone has decided the "Biggles" picture lacked suitable copyright "fair use" justification - we really need to find a "free" image somewhere. I know the "copyright police" on Wiki need to watch out for images that might breach copyright, as Wiki articles themselves are supposed to be able to be copied freely etc. etc. but sometimes they are a pain in the (hem hem) anyway. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I also had some issues with uploading some of Manfred's article pictures in the catalan wikipedia. I understand english wikipedia is on another level comparing to other wikipedias such as catalan one. I'm creating my articles knowing that won't be read that much. I just feel a nice way to practice my low-level english while reading stuff i'm interested with. Who knows, i may find some typos! I don't feel myself enough confident to specially contribute to the english wikipedia...

You maybe would like to check the correctness of Aristeidis Moraitinis (aviator) article's name. I have found many documents refering to it as "Aristide" or "Aristides".

have a nice day! --Mezod (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hello Soundofmusicals its been a long time how are you how is everything going? Secthayrabe (talk)

1001 Nights

Hello! I appreciate your work on the 1001 Nights page, though it seems like it should be monitored daily and actually get locked due to so much vandalism.

You might be interested in this blog on the 1001 Nights: http://journalofthenights.blogspot.com/

Richard ruffian (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC).

list of people with articles - should the others be deleted?? List of Bahá'ís

Hi - noticed your comment. I had a discussion with an admin or senior person a long while back (maybe even on the talk page - yes, check there) about entries without articles and he was fine as long as the person *could* have earned an article but that the article would be a work to "get to" someday. There's a project waiting..... :-) Smkolins (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

on another topic...

I read you are into library stuff and wondered if you'd dug into the corners of categorizing of the Baha'i Faith as Abrahamic. I noticed the Library of Congress in the US had so concluded and the occasional reference from other libraries, but not much depth of referencing about that. Any thoughts? Smkolins (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

and one more thought

on your interest on WWI aviation and things Baha'i, have you see [2] ? Not exactly about aviation perse but it is mentioned occasionally and might tickle that curiosity bone.... Smkolins (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Launceston

Love your work :) How are you? Aaroncrick ^TALK 08:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

you did see Bahá'í Faith in Australia right?

I know it's been a while and I may have easily spaced that you knew of this already but in case you haven't.... it's in your neck of the woods.... :-) Smkolins (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If you'll check the source at the end of that sentence perhaps it's meaning will be more plane. The idea is that Persians had attempted to settle in Australia as early as 1948 but the White Only policy kept them out until after 1973 when the policy changed. Then following the Iranian revolution even more came. - something like that. Smkolins (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Better? And now that I've made the ref more obvious it can be consulted if need be. Smkolins (talk) 08:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Good catch

Thank you for catching my error concerning the FE.8 and the RE.8. I intend to go back to the original bio article, correct it, and then add the FE.8 info to the correct article (if it is needed).

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Now that I have re-covered and amended those articles–Powell and the FE.8–you can see what I contributed.

Your comments were well chosen and are well regarded. I might mention that I doubt I will have much to contribute toward the "hardware" articles such as the FE.8 and such; probably more piping than anything. My prime interest is in the notable aces' biographies. I guess I am just a victim of my experiences. I am writing Biographical Order of Battle, just as I used to once upon a checkered past.

In the present case of the RE.8/FE.8, I happened to have a photo of the aeroplane in the source text, another photo on screen of same bird. I could see the dihedral in the photos, estimate wing width, etcetera. So I dubbed in that tech info because I could pretty much literally see its validity. Its just that, being in my sixth or seventh hour at the keyboard, I fell into the white line fever of the information highway, and the fine distinction between R and F blurred...and "tractor" and "pusher" bleared....

Anyhow, I lived through it.

Georgejdorner (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Linking to Aviation in World War I

Sorry for those crummy choices of mine in terms of picking phrases to use to link to aviation in World War I; normally I am a much more-careful editor than that.

That said, I added the links because, amazingly, neither article linked to the article! I didn't want to add it to a See also section because something like that really deserves to be integrated into the text itself. YLee (talk) 11:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Red Baron

I saw that you contributed to the Red Baron article. It is a good article i think you should try to get it to GA status or FA status. It would help the Great War Centennial Project that Military History Project is doing. Spongie555 (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Use of arcane language

That is odd for you, reverting out of hand without discussion. As the article stands it would appear that Johns is unique in using the words ... it was common useage by many authors of the day and in no way simply a W E Johns foible. Think about it and reconsider your revert. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 23:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Just that we seemed to be heading in the direction of making a mountain out of a molehill. I'll have another look at it.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:SPAD A2.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:SPAD A2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Spelling...

Ok, I understand. It's just a pet peeve of mine. Normally I don't go through and do that, but it bothered me more than usual at the time. Regards, Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:DH1A01.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:DH1A01.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:RAEF1.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:RAEF1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Kimberly (given name)

Hello, I reverted your edits to Kimberly (given name) because I thought you were mixing things up. It is indeed derived from the place name in South Africa, which was named after Lord Kimberley, whose name is from a place name. That's just the way it is, per the refs shown. Like-named places in Australia, Canada and the US aren't a factor in the given name - it's the South African place. We need to find a ref that specifically gives the etymology of Cyneburg. I'm pretty sure "royal-fortress" is about right, but a ref would clinch it.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The "Cyneburg" etymology is Anglo-Saxon - i.e. Pre-Norman conquest (1066). Article itself remarks that name dates from 1086 - many years (around three quarters of a millenium?) before any place in South Africa had an English name. In fact the place name originates (according to the article) in the personal name ("someone called Cyneburg"). All this information NOT something I just made up, but was in the article as it was before I edited it, and was apparently referenced. It certainly has the ring of being fairly factual. Then over this someone seems to have superimposed the idea that the name comes from a South African place name. Now no-one is saying that Lord Kimberley is not the source for the name of the South African place, or that Lord Kimberley does not derive his title from one of the English places of that name - that is quite different from saying that he (or anyone else) with a title, surname, or given name of Kimberley is named after the South African place. The other way round, surely?? I mean some people called Kimberley, especially if they born in South Africa, may well be named after Kimberley in South Africa, possibly from the diamond association, but that's not where the name came from, obviously, now is it? How can this be when a form of the name "Kimberley" ("Cyneburg") was current over 700 years before? Logically one of the ideas in the article before I edited it MIGHT WELL be correct - but they can't both be right. I prefer the Anglo-Saxon one (pre 1066) - or at least I reckon it is most likely... I will revert the article back to a state where it at least is internally consistent - if you want to continue this debate then our remarks here need to be removed from my personal page and put in the discussion page of the article. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

A good many places in various coutries are called Kimberley. There is a region in Australia called the "Kimberlies" (no South African connection). As a given name it is actually probably currently used most in the USA, where there are a number of places called Kimberly (different spelling - but essentially same name) - none of them named after the South African place, in fact most probably after one of two places in England. This is thoroughly muddleheaded.

This article is about the given name. The given name is derived from the South African place name. The other place names in varying countries have nothing to do with this article. Actually, there are at least three places in England named Kimberley, but they have different etymologies (from the personal names Cyneburg, Cynemær, Cynebold). The surname Kimberley can be derived from any of these places. But in this article we are only concerned with the given name. Soundofmusicals, you can't put your personal opinion into articles. We've got to follow our sources. Our reference is specific about the South African connection. It's easy to understand: the Norfolk placename is the origin of the title; the title is the origin of the South African place name; the South African place name is the origin of the given name. If you dispute this derivation that's OK, but you've gotta leave that on the talkpage, you can't mess up the article with personal opinions. It's easier to understand when you realise that Kimberley, South Africa was the site of a British victory in the Second Boer War (Siege of Kimberley - October 1899 – February 1900). That's when the name entered into the popular consciousness.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Just noting I copied and pasted this to the article's talkpage.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry, merry

Bzuk (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Manfred Von?=

Seehere. Bzuk (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

image of Baha'u'llah

Sorry I haven't logged in in a while. I agree with the underlying principle that one religion should not be able to dictate their own particular regulations on the mainstream. But that is exactly my point! It would be naive to think that wikipedia's regulations are totally secular as current. After all, explicit hardcore pornography is not allowed. Why not? I'm sure many secularists would agree it should be. Well, there is at least some vestigial influence coming from Judeo-Christian values that would render such imagery in bad taste. Well, if such values of "taste" are pulled in from Judeo-Christian values, why not incorporate those from Islamo-Baha'i values as well to make it fair. I also would not be opposed to other religious or cultural influences as to what should qualify and what should not. Kmehrabi (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

For what it is worth - I agree with most of your arguments! BUT you're going to have to accept that we CAN'T dictate to non-Baha'is on this matter, and neither should we be able to. This is NOT (as we have been told ad nauseam) a Baha'i site. It IS pretty neutral you know. Much of Wiki, and text as well as images for that matter, is deeply offensive to someone or other. (Contrary to what you say - there are even many articles, and images, that might be considered "pornographic"!) The Baha'i articles themselves would not appear as they do if the site was not essentially secular (in the best sense of that word) and neutral. In fact, there is surely not a single Baha'i editor on Wiki who does not have this article on his list, and who does not thoroughly disapprove of the Holy Image being there. There is very simply nothing we can actually do about this - as the House itself, in very similar circumstances, pointed out. New (mostly Baha'i) editors repeatedly delete the Image and regular (again mostly Baha'i) editors promptly restore it. Try to understand that there might be reasons for this (see the comments I made in my first post). Best wishes, and warm Baha'i love ... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Images SE5a

Hello - thanks for the explanation rather than just deleting the image. No problem - offered for consideration. Yes they are smaller scale - I was told 5 sixths. Interestingly at one display I attended one of the pilots was in his 80s and a former Spitfire pilot!WyrdLight (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Terraces

Sorry I didn't discuss. I thought that the subheading was for grouping things pertaining to Baha'u'llah or the Baha'i Faith, and all others unrelated. It's really a minor point, just change it back if you want. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Image

I agree. Invite people to join the discussion, so that it is clear that many editors find these images valuable to readers. Maybe we should ask for more input at the WP:MUSICALS talk page, but right now we have five votes to retain, which is pretty good. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Urk! I was surprised that the image was killed, with so many people arguing for it. I believe that the policy is being enforced improperly. I mentioned the deletion Tim riley, who has a added a new image to the article. I think this one will survive any challenge, because it is specifically an image of a scene from the musical itself and, in addition, it specifically illustrates unique aspects of the set design and staging. In general, it appears that program covers and theatre posters will be OK. All the best, and sorry that we couldn't save the image. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Musical theatre

There is a discussion at WP:MUSICALS, where an editor has removed all of the External links (we put them back). Please comment there if you have an opinion. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Happy Saturday. You don't need to get bogged down in any of the argument stuff, just comment on the current content issue, which is, do you think that the three links under discussion (two that are currently marked with the little "elno" templates, plus the aussie one) should remain or be deleted. Ronz argues that the links should be deleted, while I argue that they are useful and should be retained. Your opinion there would be very helpful, since you edit in the area of Musical theatre regularly. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

IPA on Aladdin

Shouldn't transliterations be in IPA as well? I'm not familiar with the status quo on this. Can you point me to a discussion or a policy page? Thanks. --64.172.173.138 (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The two are simply totally different things - IPA is an attempt to represent every sound in every language by a separate symbol - transliteration is a "translation" of each letter in one alphabet into its nearest equivalent in another alphabet. As well as different things, they have different functions - IPA representation is there to help a reader pronounce the word concerned correctly (assuming he knows IPA, or has access to a listing of IPA symbols) - transliteration just says how the word or name concerned is written in another alphabet. By all means add the IPA for "Aladdin" as pronounced in English if you think this is likely to be something anyone would want - or the IPA for "Aladdin" in Arabic if you think anyone wants to pronouce it that way. But if so this needs to be added AS WELL AS the transliteration, not instead of it - it is something else. The rule asking us to translate crude and ambiguous pronunciation guides with proper IPA is something else. This is NOT that, but a letter by letter representation of the arabic letters in the text. Its NOT there to help us pronounce Aladdin, but to show how the name is written in Arabic.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, this makes sense. Well, hopefully someone will add IPA pronunciation some day, but since there isn't any pseudo-phonetic pronunciation there currently, I suppose it doesn't fit the purpose of {{cleanup ipa}}. --64.172.173.138 (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)