User talk:Soundofmusicals

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

To keep my talk page succinct and relevant I have been in the habit of just deleting everything on my talk page more than 2 years old (possibly excepting barnstars and kittens) - this year I have gone through and wiped everything I noticed that was long resolved (or otherwise irrelevant), or especially unedifying.


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)

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)

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)

Glad Tidings and all that ...[edit]

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


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

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...).

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)

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)
As you have probably noticed, I have edited the article to eliminate precise calculations based on approximate "for example" type data. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, much better now, thanks. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:47, 7 June 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)


I'm going to ask an admin with experience of dealing with nationalist trolls to do a semi-protection on the 1001 Nights page. First, I'm going to give the IP POV-pusher a final warning. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Good for you - whether it's "genuine" nationalist trolls or just mischievous idiots they obviously need to be stopped. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
It's an international nationalist troll. Look at its global contributions and you'll see it's just been blocked on French Wikipedia for messing around with their Nowruz article (another favourite war zone for this type of POV-pusher). Cheers.--Folantin (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I thought it had got the message, but sadly not. As promised, I've contacted an admin here [4]. --Folantin (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
100% behind you, obviously, in the unlikely event there is any controversy. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Lord Lloyd (in article Winston Churchill)[edit]

Hi. I had mentioned Lord Lloyd's fact of having predeceased Churchill for context and as a res ipsa loquitor (a fact that speaks for itself) for a reader who may wonder why we didn't hear more of Lloyd. Churchill had the advantage of survival (both of Lloyd and the war during which Lloyd died) as well as literary volubility (Lloyd was not so prolific a political author) when he retrospectively presented his own position in The Gathering Storm etc. It is interesting to note that Lloyd was calling for rearmament when Hitler was three years off from taking power in Germany, whereas Churchill's concern was increasingly visible after the events of 1933.Cloptonson (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I understood why you added the remark - just that it has no direct relevance to the point at issue, which is Churchill's tendency to retrospectively rewrite history in his own favour, a perfectly legitimate point incidentally - one could quote many other examples. In fact the date of Lord Lloyd's decease really has nothing to do with anything very much in this article. The fact that a reader might find the fact interesting is not very much to the point. If we inserted every peripheral remark that might be of interest (as opposed to direct relevance) we could obviously go on forever, especially in the case of someone like Churchill. An encyclopedia article is very different in this respect from (say) a biography. We have to keep to the specific subject of the article, and have no space for digression. All of this is my opinion of course - you are perfectly free to raise the question on the talk page for the article - if you want to do this you might very well want to copy our remarks here, as a starter for a discussion. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Frame story revert[edit]

You reverted my edit to the Frame Story article with the comment:

'If so then the whole section needs rewriting, NOT a reference. But what is the "8th Century BCE" example referred to? Is it really a "frame" story in our sense here?)'

The example of an 8th century Western frame story is the Odyssey (, mentioned in the next paragraph.

I wouldn't mind seeing the entire section rewritten, but this would require finding some sources which I don't have. In the meanwhile, it makes more sense to simply remove the unsourced (and probably false) claim about a "gradual spread West from India". Or, if I am wrong and this is really an argument made by some historians, it should be properly sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IYY (talkcontribs) 14:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thought you might have been thinking of Homer. Other ancient Western books that chop about a bit in time, and include imbedded tales, include Apuleius. The point is are these "frame stories" as such, within the scope of this article? I think we might need a good reference to at least one source that includes them in this category before we added them to it. We don't (or shouldn't) delete things from articles (or pepper them with tags) on a hunch - the best way is always to actually go out and locate a source that backs you up! Google is a good start, but at best no more. Do you have access to a good university library? Remember this ia a serious encyclopedia article you are editing. Incidentally - always add comments to the end of talk pages (all else confusion!!) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, re-reading the article itself (which I should have done first!) - the Odyssey does get a mention, doesn't it, but the implication seems to be that it is something other than the precise definition of a "frame story" in our sense. This paragraph could well be extended to include the Iliad and the Golden Ass (etc.) - although we don't want an extended list here. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I am not an expert on this topic, and don't currently have access to a university library. But what reason do we have to believe that the person who inserted this information there is basing it on good sources? I actually took the time to look back through the revision history, and found out that the original edit is from User:Stbalbach, who copied the text whole-cloth from what User:Cassmus wrote on Talk:Summary_of_Decameron_tales. The original wording was "Frame tales originated in India before the time of Christ and gradually spread west through the centuries", no source is cited, and there is no evidence that the user is a historian. It could easily be original research, which is not allowed according to wikipedia's core content policies. As far as I understand, the burden of proof here is on the person making the original edit (User:Stbalbach or User:Cassmus). If users are allowed to insert unverifiable claims into articles, you will not have a serious encyclopedia. --IYY (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Of course it would be lovely to have a citation from someone specifically using the image of the frame story convention "spreading westwards". On the other hand this seems - at least if we define "frame story" in the usual way, instead of stretching it to include all works with time jumps, digressions and imbedded tales and/or subplots - to be pretty reasonable - if bordering a bit on "synthetic". At worst, it doesn't strike me as arrant nonsense. I can see what the writer is talking about and it makes broad sense, even if it's not how I would have put it. Synthesis is (very rightly), laid out in the rules as something to be avoided - an encyclopedia is NOT the place for new ideas, however logically constructed from the evidence they may be. On the other hand it would be impossible to write anything but dry lifeless little husks of articles on literary subjects if we tried to maintain the level of "synthesis avoidance" that would be appropriate (read necessary!) for a scientific article, or even an historical one.
Alas, there is a tendency among some editors to jump into articles on subjects that they know very little about. Personally I tend to restrict my own watchlist to articles in which I am something of an "expert", and then I often read about the subject a bit. This is one way to become an "expert" or even more of an "expert" than one used to be, especially when the "other fellow" turns out to be right after all! Ideally only "experts" (or at least people on the way to becoming experts) would meddle with articles at all - although of course that is not (alas) quite how Wikipedia works.
There seems quite enough material in all this, anyway - to start a discussion on the talk page for the article. Both questions: "is our definition of a frame story too restricted?" and "is the idea of a literary convention spreading from East to West justified in this context without a direct citation?" are points you might well raise there. This is not about you or me, it's about a very worthy project that we both want to improve - so further discussion belongs there rather than here. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

AFC edit[edit]

Gday. I don't follow your reasoning to delete the heading here [5]. Is there some MOS rule I'm unaware of? At the moment it doesn't seem consistent to not have a heading there and your edit summary was a little obtuse (i.e. "!!"). Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Just that the "heading" didn't seem to have anything useful in it. Actually the subheadings in that table all seem to cross over with the "type" column. In any case that column is rather misleading in its current form - the idea that a warplane might have a specialist role was very new in 1914/18 - and the names for the different roles, especially "Scout" and "Fighter" were different (and less consistent) than (say) during the 1939/45 conflict. Most aircraft used in the war actually did a bit of everything - especially in No.1 AFC, which served in Palestine. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Howdy, the role info was all sourced to the Issacs ref which was why I added it, although I agree each type would have been used for many different roles especially by the AFC (also some types used overseas in combat roles were used by CFS in Australia in training roles). That said the format I adopted when I created the table was nicked from other Airforce articles because I was going for uniformity. Equally I don't see why losing one heading but keeping the others would make sense, I could understand losing all of them because that would be consistent. Thoughts? Anotherclown (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, pls disregard I see the table has been substantially edited by another user. Such is wiki I guess. Kind regards. Anotherclown (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Reverting 3 changes in Manfred von Richthofen[edit]

You reverted 3 different changes I had together in this article, but commented on only 1 of the 3. I'm confused. Do you have issue with only one of the 3 changes? Or do you think all three changes are the same issue? I don't see any relationship. If you have no explanation, then I'll have to open 3 different BDR discussions on talk for these 3 different minor edits. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but I don't understand what you are talking about. Could you please describe each of the three edits I am supposed to have reverted? For the record, I do think we need the raise this matter in a proper discussion on the talk page for the article concerned, if not elsewhere - the question of a regular "manual of style" rule about foreign terms (something we don't seem to have) does need to be regularised. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
As you may have noticed - even I have given up supporting "Jastas" (English plural on German abbreviation!) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for being slow to respond -- delays in real life. For the record, this revert undid the following changes:
1. jastas -> "squadrons"
Your edit summary references this change, only.
2. Der Rote Kampfflieger—the "Red Fighter Pilot" -> Der Rote Kampfflieger—"the Red Fighter Pilot"
Move "the" inside the quotes for the translation. "Der" means "the", so translation should include that. I don't see how this could be controversial, but you reverted this with the one above.
3. jagdgeschwader -> Jagdgeschwader
Capitalize German word. I suppose one might argue that it shouldn't be capitalized, but that issue would be unrelated to the other two changes, and was not referenced in your edit summary.
WP diffs find these automatically, so I don't see how you couldn't understand the 3 changes. That's why I brought this 3-for-1-change-revert to your talk rather than article talk. I'm perplexed about your criteria/procedure for reverting.
(And, of course, I am required to raise at least one of these issues on article talk, since you reverted them twice -- WP:BRD. The only other option you've allowed me is to give up editing, or continue an edit war.)
I'll get back to the talk page when I find the time. I don't know when that may be, so no need to be quick to respond just for me. Happy editing! --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
If you have a good look at the history of this article, it shouldn't be too hard to see why we have been "reverting the baby with the bathwater" at times lately - apologies if this was the case here. I would like a comment on what I actually said in my talk remarks, however, if you can find the time. BRD is necessarily a two-way street. While one may well be able to make a case for following German rather than English style for German words this is not exactly self-evident, but one of two alternatives - in the absence of a firm MOS rule each is essentially a bit untidy... As I said above, even I can see the point of "jastas" being neither one thing or the other - generally "units" (correct but vague) "squadrons" (specific, but strictly incorrect) or even Jadgdstaffeln should all be acceptable alternatives, depending on context. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I accept your explanation of the 3-for-1 revert -- result of stress of maintaining the page over time. Thanks for explaining. It's not quite what I call a full excuse, but I certainly understand, as I've been goaded into worse myself. But we shouldn't let our edit style reflect our frustration if possible. Myself, I hope to do better, and am taking mini-wiki-breaks to avoid this.
The rest of your comment I consider as part of the content issue, which -- yes -- I haven't responded to yet, because of a combination mini-wiki-break and real life stuff. I know it's not respectful to begin a discussion and then go silent; that wasn't my intent when I started (another not-excuse, I apologize). Today I responded here on a simple issue -- something I could do in my limited time. The content issue is going to take more time for me to do it right; I have to review MOS and talk page history, and search for similar content in other articles. I hope to do this in the next couple of days, but it may take longer. Thank you for your time. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure we are both concerned more with getting it right than scoring points - can't go too wrong while we can maintain that ideal. We all have "extra-wiki" concerns that can take over from time to time. This is a "high-traffic" article, and time spent as you suggest will be well spent. -- Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

" Wankels are NEVER called "radials"[edit]

Wankels are NEVER called "radials". Yes I know, nor did I say they were. But they are (more often than not) called rotaries! Arrivisto (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The point of my remark was that your addition was under the heading Distinction between 'rotary' and 'radial' engines - if the (already extensive) disambiguation was inadequate (I don't honestly think it is) - then a note under that heading is likely to raise more confusion than it resolves. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

George Bernard Shaw[edit]

Do you realise you made an edit in direct contrast to a source? Do you realise Bernard Shaw was born in what was then the UK? Do you realise he lived in England and was a councillor in London? Do you realise it is rather racist to suggest someone must be the same nationality as their birth? Do you realise it is likely he was not even an Irish citizen? AusLondonder (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

We have been over this ground many times in the past - might I suggest you open the "talk" tab at the article itself and read the very first topic there. Of course the man was Irish - and, incidentally, quite as proud of the fact as he well could be, considering he was in general something of an anti-nationalist. Technically, we might espouse the idea that there was no such thing as Irish nationality at all until Ireland formally left the United Kingdom but this is just silly. People born in Ireland have always been Irish whatever the political status of that island or parts thereof. The point is that grumbling at me on my talk page will (and presumably everyone else on their talk pages?) is not the way to go. Start a new talk topic if you like - or add to the existing one. If you're sure you're right then you will probably eventually convince most of your fellow editors - if not, then too bad - most of us hold opinions in some sense different from some article or other on Wikipedia. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Edith Cavell[edit]

Hi Soundofmusicals. I've reverted your changes to Edith Cavell. The changes the IP had put in place did not affect how the text was displayed (so not a US/UK issue) but did mean that the servers would go to the right page and not have to follow a redirect on every reference. It is thus a matter of technical efficiency. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Oops!! - thanks for that. (resolves to be more careful) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

And to you, Bazooka! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

allah u abha[edit]

fellow bahai here, just saying hello :) --Binaryhazard (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi - Happy (Gregorian) New Year. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit summary with your 3 Jan 2016 edit at Stephen Sondheim[edit]

@Soundofmusicals: "especially in a musician"?! [6] --- Professor JR (talk) 07:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Kitten in Rizal Park, Manila.jpg Nonetheless - for all your good work and many valuable contributions - A Kitten for you! --- Professor JR (talk) 07:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Face it - homophobes would be rather restricted in their choice of music! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines[edit]

Some of the points being made about the period are useful but not in the plot section. An aside to the reader with appropriate cites to reference sources, as to the aeronautical progress taking place in the United Kingdom during the early 1900s can be made, such as "Historical accuracy". This note can be similar to ones that appear in Tora! Tora! Tora! and Battle of Britain. I do have some reservations about the "bedside manners" of the editor involved. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Shoot me an email. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Nice analysis of the situation, but unfortunately, after my wasting a half hour on reviewing a M.O., none of your assumptions are correct. See above. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


Sound, regarding this edit, you commented ""ultimately" is fairer in this case (Mary at first intended to spare Jane but it was found to be politically impossible - no need to say this outright, but...."

You seem to be implying a lot with "ultimately". I did not get that meaning when I read the sentence the first time, and would expect that few readers would. We should always be explicit when writing in Wikipedia, instead of implying things. I think that "ultimately' just comes across here as a grandiose way of saying "later", and simpler writing is preferred to more complex writing. I do not think that "ultimately" adds any meaning here. If you think that it is important to raise the issue of Mary's merciful intent and the political necessity of violence, then I think you should do so clearly. Otherwise, let's go for simplicity. Ground Zero | t 15:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

"Later" is a very poor synonym indeed for "ultimately", which means something more like "finally". It is also not really "simpler", unless perhaps we are writing for children, or people in the very early stages of learning English as a second language. "Writing down" to potential readers, and assuming they will not pick up a fairly clear implication is never good policy. "Ultimately" is not, for an adult who is either a native speaker of English, or has more or less mastered it, a "difficult" word, surely? As for "complex" or "grandiose" - I'm afraid you've lost me entirely. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

"cn trolling"[edit]

I'm glad you realised that this contained a snide remark: it wasn't needed and saying my edit was "cn trolling" wasn't constructive, helpful or useful. Next time, don't just remove the tag: find the reference in the first place and don't insult other editors when you do it. I see that you by saying "Finally - we don't make personal remarks here - stay focused on the text, not supposed characteristics of other editors. See WP:assume good faith" you already know this, although why you don't practice what you preach is beyond me. - SchroCat (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The basic purpose of citations is for situations where a statement is "challenged, or likely to be challenged" - which very clearly did not apply here - Brooklands is probably the most famous of all early airfields, and its double use in the very early days of flying is the best known thing about it. On the other hand I did in this case find a "citation" - really, as often in cases like this less a citation in the "verification" sense than an interesting little "see also" - in that contemporary "Flight" magazine story. (Wonderful they have taken the trouble to achieve all that stuff to the net! - Bless them!) And then made several mistakes in putting it in which goes to show how tired I was by then. Alas, many editors who are certainly not trolls in any other sense do seem to spend an awful lot of time whacking in cn tags wherever they see a statement, no matter how little it needs verification, that is not already referenced. This "cn trolling" is often quite well meant (although in some cases one has ones doubts). Anyway, my use of the phrase was uncalled for, even in the "if the cap fits" sort of context I used it. Edit summaries very often collect an irritated grump or two, and cannot of course be taken back, even when we'd like to. As I think you gathered, my reference to "snide remarks" in a following es was meant as a kind of apology anyway.
In this case - the article got improved, which after all is the only thing that matters. Hang in there. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually, my own opinion, fwiiw, is that cn tags have outlived their usefulness and should be banned - editors should either delete the doubtful statement (if they feel confident to do so) or if they think the statement is not unlikely, find the bloody reference themselves! For every useful cn tag there are at least fifty that are pure [naughty word expunged to protect the guilty]. Oh well. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

GBS at peer review[edit]

The Shaw article is now up for peer review. Though, of course, contributions are most welcome there from all editors, the views of a frequent and, if I may say so, wise contributor to the article such as yourself would be particularly helpful, and greatly appreciated if you have time and inclination to look in. Tim riley talk 12:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Citation needed: nice work![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.svg The Original Barnstar
Nice work on Citation needed! Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I just took a look at the Citation Needed page, after a long hiatus, and I very much like the changes that you made. It is one of these pages that I have sort of "adopted" and made various gradual tweaks to over the years, but it never occurred to me to focus on when NOT to use Citation Needed.

At some point, when I have more time (not for a few months), I am going to come back and keep making little tweaks like I always do. I will let you know when I do, and I'll try to keep your contribution intact. Thanks. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Actually expected my remarks to be promptly reverted by some jealous keeper, a relief that they were taken well. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Naw Ruz[edit]

Have a joyous Naw Ruz. Buster Seven Talk 05:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

..Thank you. Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


The 1 1/2 strutter may have had a forward facing gun, but that is not at all the same thing as this being the standard armament for reconnaissance aircraft when the type was introduced..TheLongTone (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

What about the F.K.8 and the R.E.8 and the D.H.4 for that matter. The standard armament for British two seaters - including bombers and fighters (like the Brisfit) as well as the reconnaissance ones. Apart from a few old B.E.2s all tractor two-seaters at the front had the same armament so it certainly was no longer "novel". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd need to do some digging, but would maintain that a better wording would be that this was becoming the standard armament. In any case, this is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic; the Brisfit article is appalling. The service history is sketchy and the @design and development' section is laughable.TheLongTone (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Is the article really that bad? Personally it looks to me no worse than the average WWI aviation article, for what that someone doubtful criterion might be worth. Not as bad as the Sopwith Camel one for instance, which is more "important" in the sense of being frequently consulted by readers. I would not in fact be averse to the re-wording you suggest - provided it did not give the impression that the type's armament was either "novel", or the main reason for its success. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Incidentally - if we are continue this discussion it will need to be moved to the talk page for the article, won't it? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd agree it should be moved, but am not sure that I've much to add! I've more to do to the Brisfit...I'll take a look at the Camel. I do loathe articles that ignore the design & development of the machine- principally because I fingd it a lot more interesting than all that nasty fighting stuff.TheLongTone (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
The big plus of putting stuff in the article talk page from the beginning is of course that you get other points of view. May not be worth the bother now? I have been doing some research (assemblage of facts from various sources I have access to) on the camel and the strutter. Planning to do basically new articles on both (as I have done for several other WWI aviation articles over the years, including the Fokker scourge and gun synchronisation) - interested in a collaborative effort? As for emphasis and balance - often we are just basically restricted by what has been published. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Mmm. I've vowed to rewrite the DH 88 article, & am working fitfully on that. To be honest, I think that both the Strutter and the Camel are, from a technical point of view, fairly unremarkable. Looking at the Camel article for instance, I think it says pretty much all there is to say about the basic design. But good luck...TheLongTone (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent WWI edit[edit]

May want to pop over and join in the discussion happening here about the kind of thing your edit summary seemed about. TimothyJosephWood 15:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Not specifically. "The German Army" might actually be a proper noun (meaning the entire German military, as opposed to air or naval, forces) in some contexts - but this is actually very unlikely - it is much more likely to mean something like "the body of German troops we are talking about here". In the latter sense it is of course in no way a proper noun, and capitalising it is quite wrong and really grates. A named or numbered Army (the Army of the Pontomac, the 7th Army) is obviously a proper noun - as is any other named person or thing. This has nothing to do with capitalising plural proper nouns. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


The small issue on WF WWI seems to have started with your revert of a new editor with the comment that they need to cite "MOS". That's a bit ridiculous to say to a brand new editor. This new editor started because he saw something to improve -- the way we get almost all new editors in WP; we need to encourage this, not immediately try and shut them down by throwing acronyms at them.

To make matters worse, in this case, the editor is following what WP does in other articles. Insisting that the editor is wrong in this one article even though matching the rest of WP is untenable. There are no grounds to oppose this, other than BATTLEGROUND. The more you push against this, the worse you look. Please just drop the stick and we can all go on to do something useful. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

We capitalise proper nouns and do not capitalise common ones. If another article somewhere is wrong that is nothing to do with THIS article, although it may well be that other articles need correction it is probably more likely that the case is simple different. The MOS (READ IT) actually makes preferred usage here fairly clear. It is not "fairly ridiculous" nor, (so far as I can see) even slightly ridiculous to refer another editor (new or otherwise) to our official guidelines over a point that may be causing confusion. What else should one do? I'm quite sure your edits have been made in good faith - I hope you recognise that so have mine! How I look has even less to do with the case. It's simply worth getting this right, if we can. Sloppy usage degrades what ought to be a standard reference tool. Incidentally, I am sure this is not intentional, but remarks like "Please just drop the stick and we can all go on to do something useful" are in conflict with "assume good faith" - I'm sure you can think of something more constructive to say. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
(The above comment inserted after the following.) -- Actually not so! we had an edit conflict going and this took a little sorting out
Note that in both of your last reverts, you revert changes that have nothing to do with your interpretation of MOS. It looks like you are reverting just to revert. Again, the more attention this gets, the worse you will look. Please just let it go, for your own sake. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
My last change is not in fact a "revert" at all, but a patient and painstaking run though the article locating all proper and common nouns - considering each one carefully, and correcting it where necessary. In fact I also eliminated one word (first) that added nothing nothing to the text. Wikipedia is not here for the sake of individual editors. Not interested in "my sake" - only the quality of the article. Talk to the point and not ad hominem and we might get somewhere. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Soundofmusicals. You have new messages at Talk:Bahá'í_Faith.
Message added 23:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please come and defend your opinion on the Talk page. The discussion is underway right now. The Stray Dog by Sadeq Hedayat 23:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I have already had a look at what you are doing now. If you are dropping the "unfair to Persians", and "Israelisation of Persian culture" nonsense (which to be honest I still think was a very silly and irrelevant argument) and are sincere about changing to a purely linguistic matter about having the alternative "article title" in Persian rather than Arabic... As I say if that is now the argument rather than the obvious plain untruth about the article being "censored" to favour Arab (or Jewish?) over Persian culture then I no longer have any personal problems, either as a Baha'i (which I happen to be) or as a Wikipedia editor (in this context even more important). As a Baha'i I probably would (if anything) prefer the alternative title to be in Persian myself - as a Wiki editor my main argument was always that we didn't need BOTH - that if we had the article title in Arabic then we didn't need the Persian as well. If you can assure me that the argument will remain linguistic, (no Irani chauvinism!) and that we are agreed that it is a matter of whether we have Arabic OR Persian (but not both) then by all means argue this out with others with (as you rightly point out) more knowledge of Arabic and Persian than I have. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Caporetto: rout of an army[edit]

Hi Soundofmusicals, I updated the talk page of Battle fo caporetto to discuss the use of rout, would you please have a look? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Have done. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Sopwith Camel, Dihedral Wings[edit]

I know that it mentions it lower down the page, but it was more for reasons of recognition and how unique it was, rather than for informational reasons. (i'm not going to change it back though, if you think it doesn't need to be there it probably doesn't) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJIHARKER (talkcontribs) 16:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Not that "unique" really. Certainly doesn't warrant repeated mentions. The first paragraph or two (the "lead" section) is a summary - it needs to be fairly succinct. Still, a fairly sensible edit compared with some we have to "clean up" on a daily basis, as I remarked on the article's "talk" page. Don't take it personally if some of your edits are not accepted, or get "re-edited" to something different again. This is how the system works. "Editing" Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry![edit]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC) Lights ablaze.JPG

And to you, old sport!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Humor is a filtered thing[edit]

Could I ask you to either bold the "it's humor" part, or better, remove or extreme re-edit your message? Humor in any instance is not a universally well-received art, and with the broad audience here you should expect problems from most any attempt at it. I see you were around for the great purge of humor regarding main page April Fool's celebrations, though perhaps you did not notice the blocks and de-sysopings. It's all gotten somewhat grim around here, but people already in high dudgeon just refuse to 'see' the humorous intent of the writer. (And I hope you'll note I've reverted the deletion at least once, so I'm not here out of worry about 'racism', just worry about WP and friends) Shenme (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Point taken - but then I suspect you're being humorous yourself to a certain extent? If not, then please take time from your (admirably) busy schedule to lighten up just the tiniest bit. Best wishes for the New Year. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


FLYING TIGERS HAVE P-51B/C. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHY HAPPEN IN CHINA DURING WW2! I KNOW BECAUSE I AM A CHINESE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NAKFANS (talkcontribs) 10:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

No, sorry, but they had P-40s. I was alive in 1942 so I know better than you! Seriously - find a book (or even another web site) that agrees with you if you can. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Richthofen's "sombre mood"[edit]

The following source I have found about the Baron's change of heart about how he felt about the war was in his autobiography. According to Kilduff, it expresses a sombre mood not evident in earlier writings. I am placing it in the "Author and Hero" section. I am placing it in the "Author and Hero" section. I am aware it may not be of any use but I've have no objection if you revert the changes.

I think I know who you are - but please SIGN all you posts with a little row of four "tilde" signs (these little things "~"). The formatting program automatically translates this as your account name (or IP address if you don't have an account yet). No, I didn't delete it - but I have rephrased it (not the quote itself of course, but the rest) - and moved it to the place where (I think) it fits the context best. What do you think? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Foster Mount[edit]

Looks good to me... I think that you are vastly more knowledgable about this area tan I am, & I can't see anything obviously wrong with it. I don't know the extent of your library & have no really helpful suggestions, but are you familiar with The Air Defence of Great Britain 1914- 1918 (published by Putnam, & extensively referenced in the articles on strategic bombing in WW1 & Zeppelins.TheLongTone (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - that sounds as if it may be worth getting hold of! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:NieuportFosterMount.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:NieuportFosterMount.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) 10:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:FrenchNieuportOverwingLewis.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:FrenchNieuportOverwingLewis.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) 10:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

No. 11 Squadron RAF[edit]

Regarding the dates; replace with what exactly? MOS:BADDATE says that the use of any ordinals is not acceptable and as they do not appear in the rest of the article, it can hardly be called changing the style. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Forget it - I see that you have already changed it back to the way that I had done it; so why revert me in the first place....?The joy of all things (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Not quite "as you had it" (have a closer look). But yes, I think (hope) we now have it right. Keep up the good work! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit destroys meaning of text. Understanding must precede fiddling with prose.[edit]

Of course my edit destroyed meaning of text. For a reason: previous text was nonsense. The "need to aspirate the fuel/air mixture through the hollow crankshaft and crankcase", if true (or not: monosoupape proves that there is no such need), has just nothing to do with lubricating issues. Absolutely nothing prevent a rotary engine to push lubricating medium just like any other 4-stroke, independently from fuel-air mixture; the only trouble is, you just cannot get it back in the crankcase, so it would be total loss nonetheless.

Of course "Understanding must precede fiddling with prose". Are you sure you understood, before fiddling?

I am in no mood for an edit fight with a reverting jack, so a refnec will do. Just hope you have fun.

Gem fr (talk) 09:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

You've a point about centrifugal force throwing everything outward (if that's what you mean) - but otherwise, sorry, but it made sense before, and, what is even more important here, followed (the sense of) our sources. Having said that, this article is a tricky one, and may need more attention to make it clearer. On the other hand, my edit summary was sarcastic and uncalled for - this (sarcastic edit summaries) is a fault in my reactions to other editors, which I must watch. Understand it, if you can, as the irritation of a testy old gentleman easily stirred to grumpiness. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
ok, end of this bad part of the story Gem fr (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

tasmanian aboriginal names[edit]

rather than remove - think of the option - either a footnote or in parenthesis might be better than simply deleting JarrahTree 04:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't remove it - please read the edit itself! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Haha - that is the problem with descriptive edit summaries - assumption from that rather than the edit itself - my mistake - thanks for pointing that out JarrahTree 04:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

RFAR declined[edit]

Your request for arbitration has been declined as premature at this time. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 18:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


That's quite alright. It seemed odd that the same description was applied to two different outcomes - Garros fired "through" the arc, and hit it at least some of the time, whereas the synchronised gun fired "through" the arc, and didn't. It occurred to me at one point that the preposition "between" might serve a purpose somewhere in this passage.

Anyway, please note that I have avoided any puns based on the word "Fokker". It is also a welcome change to receive a response that is polite, collaborative, conciliatory, constructive, self-deprecating, and appreciative. Fokker nell. Hengistmate (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

"For these kind words accept my thanks, I pray..." (W.S. Gilbert) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

MvR's Lost Spandau's[edit]

Hello Paul, I was wondering where you got the information for one of your edits to the the Manfred von Richtofen page, specifically the part where you mention the Baron's machine guns being located at the Imperial War Museum in London. All of my research indicates his machine guns vanished shortly after his death and have not resurfaced since. I was wondering if you've actually seen them or pictures of them at the museum. I recently found what I think is a viable clue as to the final disposition of the guns, but if you can confirm for me that they reside at the IWM, then I'll stop my wild goose chase!
Allen --Aczuda (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Almost everything that could be stuffed into someone's pocket was indeed souvenired, but of course the machine guns were not in this category, and the idea that they "vanished" is, I must admit, new to me, and, on the face of it, highly unlikely. Several of our sources (books etc. listed at the end of the article) are by writers who have examined the guns held by the IWM, and even come to their own theories as to how he died based on the state of the guns (one is in a jammed condition and the other has a damaged firing pin, apparently! The flaw in this, as evidence, is that we have to assume that no one has test fired or otherwise tinkered with the weapons since). As you are probably aware - Wikipedia is not a research organisation, and by and large we are more about recording the consensus of our sources rather than "debunking myths" or unearthing "new information". By all means have fun "investigating" by-ways like this - but to add information to the article we really would need to be able to refer to the published work of a known and respected researcher. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Ig Nobel Prize[edit]

I noticed your reversion of my edit to this page, and hope that you reconsider. Although not prohibited by the Manual of Style, one of my pet peeves is the use of such jargon abbreviations when they are not needed and unfamiliar to a general audience. AIR might be used extensively by those who are specialists, or knowledgeable or familiar the Ig Nobel Prize, but Wikipedia is supposed to be for everybody, not a specialized group. In this particular instance, it serves no purpose, such as to replace terminology that is repeated frequently throughout the article. It's also unclear whether it's an abbreviation, an acronym, or an initialism - should it be said as the word "air" or as the initials "a.i.r."? - so it doesn't add anything to the article. I have a science background but if I were writing about something published in a journal, I would never write, for example "the Annals of Internal Medicine (AIM)" just because an abbreviation can be or is used by insiders. If the article were written for a book or newspaper, the editor would delete the term.

Ira Leviton (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Regards, Ira

AIR (aka Annals of Improbable Research) is a parody of scientific societies and their journals. The use of a catchy acronym is meant to be a humorous take-off of the widespread use of such things by serious scientific (and other) organizations. Since "they" use the acronym (it is part of the joke) it is absolutely appropriate for an article about them to use it too. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)