User talk:Soundofmusicals

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

I've just (more or less) wiped my talk file up to the end of 2013 - in the most unlikely event that anyone wants to raise anything earlier - pull up an older version from "history". Also hereby advise I have deleted a large part of my watchlist - including a lot of stuff I originally "drifted into"!

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)

Talk:Sweeney Todd: Revision history[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richthofen's death[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can contact me on


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

Merry Merry[edit]

To you and yours


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

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

Valzer delle candele[edit]

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

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

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

Happy New Year![edit]

Fuochi d'artificio.gif

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

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

WrestleMania & Roman numerals[edit]

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

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

March 2015[edit]

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

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

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

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

New article[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

Ruritanian romance[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for April 16[edit]

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for April 26[edit]

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

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

Richthofen maths[edit]

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

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

February 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • after [[Brooklands]] where early automotive racing and aviators shared the facilities for testing).}<!--note the term "aeroplane" is appropriate for the time, and is actually still fully in use in

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Fixed!! -Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:23, 13 February 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)

Origin of the word "Bahai"[edit]

I undid your reverting on the Article [[Bahai Faith] because Baha is an Arabic name but the word Bahai (Baha=Arabic word+ i=Persian suffix=Arabo-Persian word=Bahai. the Bahai is an Arabo-Persian .you are a native speaker of English and it seems that you even do not understand Persian or Arabic, please let others share their knowledge . if you are a member of Bahai Faith it doesn't mean you know everything about it . im seeing some users are trying to show Bahai as the second religion of Israel and use Arabic (second official Lang of Israel) (israelization) . Bahai faith inst Israeli-origin religion and only some in-exile followers and some modern buildings . i can not bear this bad propaganda even in Naw-Ruz that is completely a Persian word, no one mentioned the Persian type ?? encoring the Persian legacy of the religion ? really ? why ?? we mustn't edit based on Iran-Israel relations we must be WP:Neutral.

No, sorry, but you are wrong - that's NOT how it works. Think for a moment and you will see why this MUST be so. The very first sentence of an article is in a way a summary of what follows, but it (usually) must still leave a lot unsaid - that's what the rest of the article is for! In this case there is a quite long article to follow that makes the point you want to make over and over again. The rule is there for a reason - otherwise we'd have dozens of translations and transliterations at the head of every article in Wikipedia. If we have to have a Persian translation of the article title - then why not a Hebrew one - the Baha'i headquarters are in Israel? Why not a Hindi one - most Baha'is live in India? And so on - let one new language there and we'd have half a page of them in no time! It's just not the place - the article title is the English language one simply because this is the English edition of Wikipedia; the Arabic one is there very simply because "Baha" is an Arabic word (the fact that like many Arabic words it is used as a load word in Persian is neither here or there). Please, always sign your posts - and comment on articles at the page for the article concerned! (Copying this exchange there). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Long sentences but i think it is still non-scene for me .ok maybe you right, tell me why you deleted the category Iranian religions either ?? you wanna delete the legacy of Iran related to the article and i pretty know that kinda censor here. it is not fair i think. it is absolutely an Israelization of a culture which its origin is IRAN . got it? The Stray Dog by Sadeq Hedayat 15:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
hey . seriously stop reverting my edits . if you do not, i will tell an admin .. cuz the first reference clearly is saying the word bahai is Persian. look at the Note 1 of that article it is clearly shows that i am completely right .. Stop Israelization .. got it or you wanna resume your acts???
Long sentences but i think it is still non-scene for me .ok maybe you right, tell me why you deleted the category Iranian religions either ?? you wanna delete the legacy of Iran related to the article and i pretty know that kinda censor here. it is not fair i think. it is absolutely an Israelization of a culture which its origin is IRAN . got it? The Stray Dog by Sadeq Hedayat 15:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Have you actually read past the first sentence of the article? The point is that the fact that Baha'i originated in Iran is not "censored" at all - but repeatedly mentioned in a long, detailed article. It very simply doesn't need to be part of the article title or the first sentence. Adding translations and transliterations of the article title to that sentence is generally unconstructive and unnecessary. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:22, 25 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)