User talk:Soundofmusicals

I have deleted everything over four years old as almost certainly no longer relevant (this time even the old kittens and barnstars too).

Edit summary with your 3 Jan 2016 edit at Stephen Sondheim

@Soundofmusicals: "especially in a musician"?! [1] --- Professor JR (talk) 07:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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)

Mary_I_of_England

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"

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

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!

		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

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

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

Brisfit

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

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)

BITE

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)

Talkback

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

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 82.169.5.152 (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Sopwith Camel, Dihedral Wings

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 (talk • contribs) 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!

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

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

Humor is a filtered thing

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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"

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

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

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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:FrenchNieuportOverwingLewis.jpg

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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

No. 11 Squadron RAF

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.

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

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

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

Fokker.

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

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

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)

Sindbad

Soundofmusicals, I advise you to stop. What you are doing is merely trying to have the last word, typical ownserhip behaviour, clearly apparent from the fact that you came to make the edit, without having adequate time to do so ("sorry to be hasty n the first instance"), but you just had to come and revert, regardless of whichever version is better — as long as it is yours. It is simply absurd to link a term to a list when an article about that term already exists. That, at a quick glance, I see about 35 reverts by you just on the first page of the history (500 edits per page) and countless other cases of removal of contributions by other editors, reinforces the case for ownsership. In all fairness, a thorough analysis of those edits might prove you right, but that is what it looks like at first glance — and based on my own experiences in trying to make a sensible edit to the text. Finally, you first reverted my edit and suggested I discuss on the talkpage, which I did. So now you come along and revert again without as much as bothering to state your case on the talkpage as you yourself suggested. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

On the subject of "advice" - drawing perverse conclusions from my attempts over the years to defend this much vandalised article is, with respect, not exactly consistent with a number of Wiki guidelines. I have long ago stopped arguing matters like this, where rational discussion is no longer possible. Hope springs eternal, however, that this is not yet the case, and that we can get over your ad hominem remarks and return to what we are here for.

My first revert was probably not the best edit I have ever done (I have already apologised for it, to be fair!) - I should have actually looked at that list article, which, as you said, did not have a mention of Sinbad. Not that that would have been of much significance, but it didn't have a definition of what a literary cycle is either! I "remedied" (hastily) both these defects and then reinstated the link - asking you to have a look at it. The real problem is that we effectively don't have a "main article" related to the list - the pathetic little stub that is there doesn't give any real information on the subject, and until this is remedied (no, I am much too old and unwell, not to mention plain fed up) we may as well leave this one as is. I still think that returning to the original text, before your first edit, would be preferable - the link is not the most useful one in Wikipedia but neither does it tend to confuse or mislead: the problems with the article(s) linked to is really a separate matter. Nonetheless it is probably not worth fighting over. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

My apologies

Hi, Soundofmusicals. My apologies, for a misunderstanding over your "sorry to be hasty n the first instance". In South African English it can be interpreted differently, i.e., "to start with"/ "firstly" (i.e "sorry to be hasty to start with"/ "firstly, sorry to be hasty"), so I thought you were referring to being in a hurry and wanted to point that out. My mistake, apology accepted, kindly accept mine in return. I will correct what I said in relation to that (once I find out how to do a strikethrough). Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

No worries. One of the advantages of discussing this on a personal talk page is that I can (and will, if you agree) simply wipe the whole exchange. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

No sweat (South African English). Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Soundofmusicals. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Language vs pigin

Please see Pidgin and Creole before making claims of what constitutes a language or not. A Pidgin language is a language that springs up rather quickly as a blend of several languages whose primary purpose is for communication. Hiri Motu fits this description. Regarding this edit Hiri Motu is not an Austronesian langue, it is referred to as a creole in the article's text and references. See here for why Hiri Motu is considered a pidgin. See this too, Hiri Motu is clearly refered to as a Pidgin here.

The fact that the majority of it's features are Austronesian based does not make it an Austronesian language per say, the same way as Saramaccan is not considered and Indo-European language. Sure Hiri Motu might be an Austronesian-based pidgin in the same way that Saramaccan is a Indo-European -based creole, but at the end of the day both are still creoles and pidgins and this should be reflected in the respective templates. Its great that you speak Hiri Motu, but the references and citations refer to it as pidgin and that is what I am going with. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

To be very polite a "mixture of Austronesian and Papuan" is not what the article says at all, and in any case is just not so. Nor do any of our sources. There is very simply no such thing as a "Papuan family" of languages - the label "Papuan" referring to a language means nothing more or less than "a language indigenous to the island of New Guinea, other than a member of the Austronesian language family. Some "Papuan languages" are in fact more or less closely related to each other, but many are not - the only thing they have in common is not being Austronesian.

English (this language here) is a simplified version of another language called Middle English, which is a turn a simplified version of another language called Anglo Saxon ("blended in the mixer with a simplified version of old French). Modern Italian is a simplified version of Medieval Latin - which is in turn a simplified version of Classical Latin. Modern Castilian, Catalan, Portuguese, French, and many other European languages are also, in their own distinctive ways, "simplified Latin". Frankly, languages, whether family they belong to, have a tendency to "shed grammar" as time goes by - a high degree of literacy, and the presence of a written literature slows this process but it is pretty inexorable all the same.

The mechanism by which a true Pidgin arises, and the way that it evolves into a Creole, is described by modern linguists as another process altogether. It is not simply a process of simplification (viz. the distinction in Tokpisin between "yu" and "yupela" - which is lost in modern English, and the "yumi/mipela" distinction which English has never possessed). As the article has always stated (since long before I ever edited it) Hiri Motu has "some of the features of a Pidgin or a Creole" but it is not really either a true Pidgin or a Creole. It did not originally evolve as a means of communication between "masters" and "servants", but between interdependent trade partners whose own languages were distinct, but mostly more or less closely related. (E.g. Roro, Waima, Mekeo etc.) - these, and almost all of the languages of the region concerned, were (and are of course) Austronesian. Where a specific lexical or grammatical feature tends to be held in common between several of these language Hiri Motu will tend to keep the feature - where the vocabulary or grammar is very different is where the "simplification" occurs.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Uh when did I ever say that a pidgin was communication between servant and master? Hiri Motu clearly originated as a simplified version of a language for trade, similarly to Basque–Icelandic. And the fact that languages tend to simplify over time is nothing new, point is while English has gradually simplified over time as it naturally evolves, Hiri Motu was simplified specifically and intentionally for the meaning of communication.

Anyway this is a digression. If you want to list Hiri Motu as an Austronesian language, find a reliable source that says that Hiri Motu is an Austronesian language, not an Austronesian-based language/pidgin/creole, not a mixed language, but an Austronesian language. So far all the sources in the article mention that Hiri Motu is a mixed or pidgin language. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Doubly digressive indeed, if all we are arguing about is the colour coding of the template. We do indeed need much more reliable sources here - a lot of what we have is far from "reliable" - the Ethnologue page for instance actually echoes OUR text! The current wording, that the "parent language" is Austronesian (which of course is patently factual) seems a reasonable compromise. Again - my talk page is not really the place for this - and I am copying it to the talk page for the article itself. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Similar wishes, from the hot and Summery South! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Ace race

Hello, som,

When you were working up the Fokker Scourge article, did you come across any info concerning the ace race among the very first victorious German pilots?Georgejdorner (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in answering this, George - I made a point of including most of the sources I used for the research on the Fokker Scourge article - several of which would be useful for research on the "Fokker aces". I am sure you are familiar with the Norman Franks book, Sharks among minnows - if not the full bib.cite is at the end of the article. From memory this would be the best source for the "race". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Satire

Hi,

I noticed your fairly prompt reversion of my recent edit on this page, and ask you to reconsider.

My issue of using the phrase 'of course' is not one of overuse. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, where many people come to learn. As used on this page, 'of course' assumes that the reader has knowledge of the stories being discussed. Taking a step back from the subject matter, it is highly unlikely that my ten year old son or my 80 year old grandmother (both imaginary figures, but the type of people I keep in mind when I write articles or make edits) will be familiar with the stories that are mentioned. Additionally, the Wikipedia Manual of Style does not say "don't overuse" phrases like 'of course', it simply says to "avoid" them, and that they "can usually just be deleted, leaving behind proper sentences with a more academic and less pushy tone."

Additionally, the historical present is not applied throughout the article, making the tense inconsistent. It's not used consistlently even in the paragraph, and is applied only to Swift. I made that change to be consistent.

Ira Ira Leviton (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ira,

Thank you very much for opening a discussion on this rather than hopping in with a "counter edit": a cardinal "wiki-error" I confess to having been guilty of myself on occasion! Although it is (in most cases, anyway) even better to use the talk page for the article concerned. For what it is worth, I am very well aware that your edit was well intended, and I certainly meant no personal criticism.

On the other hand: in this case I do think that "of course" adds a small but necessary degree of emphasis, and I'd like you to consider whether we shouldn't keep it after all. It may seem strange, but some people are so literal-minded that they consistently miss the point of irony and sarcasm unless it is specifically pointed out to them. If you read the talk page for the article on A Modest Proposal you will notice that a number of people have gone as far as to ask us "how we can be so sure" that Swift didn't mean exactly what he said! "Of course" here, makes the point that we are assuming the work IS ironical.

I'm afraid I am a little bemused by your remarks about "familiarity with stories". The stories in Gulliver's Travels can surely be taken as "familiar" to most people (even if they just have a vague picture of a full sized man among a race of miniature people). But the "of course" only applies to Swift's irony in "A Modest Proposal" - which is not a "story", but an essay, essentially a mock "journalistic opinion piece". Many people, and not just the very young and the decrepitly aged, WILL be unfamiliar with this (reason why it's linked, of course) - although I must put a plug in for the oldies - if only because I am myself older than your imaginary grandmother!) but again I really can't see what this has to do with "of course". incidentally, I don't like to think that Wikipedia, albeit a "popular" rather than a highly academic encyclopedia, should be "written down" to such a low common denominator (very small children and people suffering from dementia)in fact I doubt if you really mean that either.

This is already a very long post - but just a little parting plug for the historic present tense. While the plain past would not actually be incorrect here the h.p. reads more naturally, in fact we use it again in the very next paragraph (when discussing Pope), and in innumerable other places in this and other "literary" articles in Wikipedia (and elsewhere!) given this kind of context. True, our "original author" prefers the past tense in "was written", a little further down THIS paragraph - but this refers to an historical event (the writing of an essay in response to another) as opposed to a delineation of its content. Switching tenses is something we do all the time (why they're there, in English the "right tense" can be as important as the "right word") - in fact if it is not overdone it can make our prose clearer and more readable. The only time it becomes ungrammatical is when we mix incompatible tenses, especially within a sentence. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi again

Thank you for your thoughtful and entertaining reply.

I'll take things in reverse order this time. First, you gave me a big laugh - I didn't mean to insinuate that my imaginary grandmother had dementia, although my real grandmother did. The part from 10 to 80 year olds was just to include as broad an audience as possible, without going overboard.

I confess that I missed the change in tense in other places, and thought that I had caught the only historical present tense. I suppose changing back and forth is a problem inherent in all types of wikis. There should eventually be a top to bottom review for copy editing of this article so that it reads more smoothly, but it won't be by me because I'm not expert enough about this subject matter and might inadvertently change an intended meaning.

Regarding the 'of course', I see your reason for wanting emphasis, but it still assumes that the works have been read. I'm wondering if another phrase or word can be used, or two different phrases if a single phrase doesn't fit, so that somebody who hasn't read these will understand. Something like 'subtly but openly" or "not too subtly" for the passage about Swift and something like "plainly" or "explicitly" for the one about Trudeau. I leave it to you because you're probably much more familiar with these than I am (I don't know Trudeau's character at all) and my suggestions may miss the mark.

Thanks again for your note.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Oswald Boelcke

Hello, som,

If you haven't noticed, I am rewriting the above (with the aim of making a GAN). I think you shall find that my upcoming new additions to this article are going to add some insight into the Fokker Scourge. You may want to keep an eye out for that.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks George - will do. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I am using Brigadier General R. G. Head's 2016 bio of Boelcke. Head marks 1 August 1915 as being the beginning of the Fokker Scourge. I have shied away from using such a specific date in my rewrite of the ace's WP bio. I was wondering if you had run across any such definite date in your research.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm baaaccck. Found that you were the editor that accessed a photo that is reputedly that of Boelcke's Halberstadt D.II. Can you enlighten me about any info you have on that tentative identification? Especially, why "reputedly"?Georgejdorner (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

This photo is from an elderly source (Cheesman and Lamberon's Fighter aircraft of the 1914-1918 war(1960). (Page 134 if you can locate a copy). Back in the early sixties we all assumed that this one, and the other Harleyford WWI volumes, were carefully researched and accurate - it fact they had an authority that was almost Biblical. The caption to the photo is "D-II D.605/16 flown by Boelcke" which until fairly recently I would have taken as pretty conclusive. Nowadays I have my doubts - accounts in more recent sources seem to have B. flying Fokker D.IIIs and IVs in the period just before Jasta 2 started to get their Albatroses - while the Kampfeinsitzerkommanden and early Jagdstaffeln flew all manner of odds and ends (including captured Nieuports!) before they got hold of Albatros Ds I can't see B. willingly giving up a Halberstadt "D" for an early Fokker one. And Cheesman is full of howlers (on this very page he muddles the D.IV and the D.V). But I don't really know - in a way the reservations about whether B. really flew that particular (or any) Halberstadt D is almost "original research" (or perhaps "original doubt"? Sorry I can't be more conclusive. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Just noticed the question about the 1st of August as the date for the start of the Fokker scourge. I think Brig. Head and I got our information from the same source. Like lots of historical dates this one is necessarily a little arbitrary. The incident on which the "usually accepted" opening day is based is (if it hasn't been wiped or moved) described under the section of the article headed "The Scourge begins". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Seems Head has a handy guide to the aircraft Boelcke was flying when he scored his victories. None of them was a Halberstadt. If he did fly a Halberstadt, he achieved nothing of note in it. I am pulling the photo from the article.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Suspect you're right! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Scrooge

Hi, regarding our edits in the Scrooge page, I wonder: could it be a good idea to briefly point out in the incipit that "scrooge" as a name meaing "miser" comes from the character Ebenezer Scrooge? If we don't write that, some people may assume that the opposite thing is true, and come to the wrong conclusion that Dickens named his character Scrooge because it was already an established term for indicating a miser. That wasn't my main reason for editing the page (I edited it to correct the use of italics in an entry of the list), but I am still interested in your opinion on this matter. --Newblackwhite (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but this is not an article about "Scrooge" as such, but what we call a "disambiguation" page - the idea is to point to the various "Scrooge" pages, as the word (or name) (originating as it probably does with Dickens) is used in various other contexts, and in a number of other articles! The first line is a straight dictionary definition, and shouldn't refer to any of the specific entries, precisely to avoid the kind of confusion you refer to. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For All your cotributions to WP. - Samf4u (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

A couple years ago a I made small edit to Synchronization gear and have since watched it grow into what I feel is a great article mostly due to your tireless work. - Samf4u (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism charge on Universal language

Never mind. I see you said you made a mistake. Shame Wikipedia doesn't notify me about that. Sorry; best, Packer1028 (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

No worries - came on like the caped crusader to say I already apologised and here we are. Not the perfect system, is it? But it's a very amateurish article - and seems to duplicate matter covered better in (for example) Lingua franca. A bit more need changing than a couple of punctuation marks. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Royal Aircraft Factory F.E.2 (oleo undercarriage).

Hello,

Sorry, som, but my fund of knowledge about the mechanics of this aircraft are minimal. I can't help you.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

No worries old chap, although as always we are concerned less with technical "truth" (important as that is) and more with verifiability and following the lead of reliable sources. Best wishes, anyway. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Synchronization gear

Thanks for getting in touch. I found your message interesting, and was impressed you could identify it (that might be worth passing on the IWM as I bet they don't know exactly what the pictures are of). You clearly know an awful lot more than me about the topic; I just stuck in the picture as I found it interesting, because, improvised as it is, I would guess the inventors of more well-known systems worked out the bugs on very similar test-rigs. The details of the development work and the existence of that kind of test rig is not something I've ever seen discussed.Catsmeat (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Soundofmusicals. You have new messages at Evenmadderjon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

File source problem with File:Royal Aircraft Factory BE12 1.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Royal Aircraft Factory BE12 1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Now sorted (I hope)--Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Those Winter Sundays

Hello, I'd like you to know that a draft page of the poem "Those Winter Sundays" by Robert Hayden already exists and it will be a real page soon I'd also like you to check out my contributions to see the draft page, I'm sure you can help us out with it. Can I add the citation back, or do you think it's better if I add it after the actual publication of the page? Leozanoni (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes - do this after the actual page goes up - at the moment the link is simply not very helpful (and being helpful is what Wikipedia is all about!). Welcome to the editing "team" (assuming you ARE a new editor?).

Another thing - new posts on talk pages go at the bottom, not the top. Wiki sorts this out for you if you put anything new into a "New Section". Good luck with your new article - I am not familiar with the poem concerned (not being American) so I will leave it to you for the moment. Don't be shy about "publishing" it before it is really ready - I'm sure there are other editors (not to mention casual users) who will hop in with helpful (and, alas, some not so helpful) remarks and amendations.

I have duplicated this exchange (at the bottom) of my own talk page.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Just found that draft - by all means submit it! I know very little about Robert Hayden and even less about this poem, so I can't comment on your content - but at first glance it seems to be very competently done for a new article by a new editor. Once it has been accepted and is officially "up" you can (in fact please do) add any relevant links to other articles. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Soundofmusicals. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Xmas

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

red links

If you are not familiar why red links are used , Ill suggest you read this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Red_link and after reading it, revert your edit in Hispano-Suiza -->Typ932 ^T·C 06:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's you who need to read it. This is not a "use" of a red link in accordance with the MOS but a pointless MISuse. See also my post to the talk page of this article, which is where we discuss this sort of thing - out in the open where other responsible people can see it. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Auld Lang Syne

It's a version of the song that made Top 10 on two major charts. This fact should be at least mentioned somewhere in the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

No - the song is so very much more important than the singer in this context that it doesn't belong here at all. If we tried to list all the versions of ALS at least as important to this article as this one we'd have hundreds of them and they'd completely swamp the article. Please in future do not "edit war" - go to the talk page for the article concerned (to which I am moving this) and raise any objections you have there. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Mass reversions in Roman Numerals

For the second time you massively reverted my work, without bothering to pick what you really object to; even though I tried to make the least possible changes. You even reverted all my work on the historical section, which you said you did not care about.
Please respect other people's work, if you want them to respect yours.
--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

That's very simply not how it works - "work" is not "respected" in iteself, but in so far as it actually improves an article. Nothing to do with you (or me of course) only the article, and the encyclopedia as a whole. It is necessary to justify changes like this - try one change at once - starting from the top - why delete information from the lead - while at the same time adding details that can only confuse when added "out of context" as here, I'll do a "round Robin" among people why have edited this article in the past, and we'll see if we can beat out a consensus. on each point. One reason why we have had so little reaction so far might be that our comments have been "interleaved" in what would be a confusing way for a third party reading them and trying to get the gist of the disagreement. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Reversal of Roman Numerals, again

As you wrote yourself in the article, there is no such thing as "the current convention" that specifies that subtractive notation is THE right one, and that the additive notation is "wrong" or "obsolete". In fact, as the quotes in the references show and the other sections explain, the additive notation has always been admitted as valid, from early Roman times to this day.
So the article cannot say "is written": that would be a lie, because it would imply that there is such a standard. To be truthful, the article must say "is usually written".
Wikipedia is meant to be always descriptive, never normative. That is a fundamental and very strict principle.
Also, when teaching students it is sort of okay to tell a simple lie at first, like "the Earth is a sphere", and only later explain "I was lying, the Earth is not quite a sphere". But that is not acceptable in a Wikipedia (or in any encyclopedia). A Wikipedia article is not meant to be a school textbook or the script of a lecture.
And, again, you have massively reverted all my work, without bothering to check it. If you disagree with some of my edits, please try revert only those.
For instance, "additive" is an established name for the "non-subtractive" version, and subtractive notation is now a redirect to Roman numerals so there is no point linking to it.
--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 05:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I reverted "one edit", NOT "all your work" - and it was "reverted" to your own latest version. If "subtractive notation" no longer has its own article than I am very pleased indeed. Personally I don't like the tendency to invent unnecessary words, "subtractive", so far as I am concerned, suck royally and would be better banished altogether - "additive" (in this sense) is a frank abomination. I prefer, personally, the idea that (at least in Roman times) it was really nothing more than an "abbreviation", although I am not sure we'd get away with that one. I've said this elsewhere, but in a section with a "rules" label we can't overdo the "liberality". Even if, as I have always done in this article, we want to remain descriptive rather than prescriptive. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

And again...

Once more you flatly reverted all my recent edits to Roman numerals because you disagreed with ONE of them. Can you please be more considerate of other people's work? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

This time it was an accident - I meant to undo a particular edit - realised after retiring to my bed of pain what I had done, and slipped the cordon of "minders" to correct it before you had a chance to see what I had done! All your fault for hopping in so soon (lol). None the less we did need to fix a few things - consideration goes both ways, and in any case does NOT take precedence over the value of the article, and the encyclopedia of which it is a part. I have made some further tweaks to the "rules" section to address my special beefs with what it had become - and moved some stuff to a new "footnotes" section. Deliberately giving you your complete head in the "Origins" section - much of which seems irrelevant to THIS article, and which is still not suitably referenced. Just not enthusiastic enough about this to give myself another stroke arguing about it. Kidding aside, someone else is likely to start having a go at you about it, sooner or later. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Up yet again to check the state of play. Have you recently read the article as it currently stands ? - a lot, if not all, of your objections on the talk page seem to have little connection to the article itself. Under protest, I am accepting the use of jargon, simply recording that I don't like it, and why. We go out of our way in several contexts, even our description of the (alleged) "rules" where it might have been clearer to have held our peace, to stress that there have been all sorts of "different" ways to "spell" some numbers (as we did before you started editing the article). Finally, although we do still "count to ten" rather than nine - any possible implication that "X" is a "units" value has been carefully and specifically eschewed for some time now. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Forgot to respond to your post. Is there still a problem? Ping me or post again to my talk page if there is. Doug Weller talk 16:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roman numerals, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IXL (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hi. As a courtesy I'm letting you know I've pinched three of your userboxes: cats, G&S and football. The cats one is particularly apt, the featured moggie losks like a short-haired version of Aslan, one of our cats. Thanks for the boxes, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

No worries - those userboxes have been there for ages - can't even remember where I got most of them - all for sharing of course - best wishes/happy editing. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Roman numerals

I take your point that we should not "ape" references and rather use our own words, however nor should we alter or inflate the meaning of them (seeWP:STICKTOSOURCE). "Most" has a very different meaning to "many" as I'm sure you will agree. As such, I'll come an alternative way of expressing more accurately the meaning of the reference. Cheers Jschnur (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

By all means (I take YOUR point too, of course) - or, and this may be an even better idea, find an alternative reference that is closer to our text! In the aftermath of making my latest edit I had fun looking at some of these (just try Googling "Roman numeral clock IIII" ) - interestingly, MANY (if not MOST) of these use a phrase that includes MOST rather than MANY.

But let's get this into proportion - the best and most important reason for having citations at all is to increase the accuracy of this encyclopedia by cutting down on "original research" (in the sense of editors' pet notions). But the "notion" that not just MOST, but practically ALL Roman numeral clocks use "IIII" rather than "IV" is hardly one crying out for specific verification - "public" exceptions like Big Ben are actually very rare indeed - most exceptions are in the "private" or "deliberately non-traditional" category! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I took your suggestion of Googling "Roman numeral clock IIII" and sure enough, I found myself falling into a rabbit hole full of twists and turns involving at least four different theories (more like speculations really) on why most clocks seem to use IIII. I now think you were right to revert my edit, I just wish we had a citation that used that word rather than many (and that my kitchen clock didn't use a "IV"). Jschnur (talk) 07:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the current citation is the best of a bad lot. Remember this is the "lede" - we treat the question more comprehensively in the body of the article, where we can better sort out what "citations" to refer to. A citation that is at best a blog deserves less reverence than (say) a prestigious print encyclopedia. [edit: in fact I've substituted a "reputable newspaper one]

Another point is that the difference between "many" and "most" (in this context, at least) is as points on a continuum running between "few", "some", "many", "most" and "practically all". None of these are "different" in a precise (or, in this case, measurable) sense.

Before the current trend surfaced for wrist watches, kitchen clocks and such (what I referred to as "private" timepieces in my last post) to use Roman Numerals, virtually all RN clock faces appeared on public clocks and used the traditional form (each numeral oriented radially rather than vertically, as well as using IIII instead of IV). To be fair, most still do. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Copying this to the article concerned. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Soundofmusicals,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 16:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Soundofmusicals,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Soundofmusicals,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

DC-3

I saw your revert and edit summary there. I disagree; I think after this length of time it needs to go unless there is a source. I cannot find one, can you? Please join the discussion at Talk:Douglas DC-3. Thanks a lot. --The Huhsz (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The teddy bear scare of the early 20th century

I don't see how what I posted was trivial. In fact, given supplemental material, it could actually be expanded into its own section; I kept it brief to avoid undue weight issues. If you listen to the podcast (~46 min) on which the RS that I provided is based, there's a great deal of history of the early evolution of the teddy bear and its acceptance into general society, to the point of where it might have faded into obscurity and might only be a museum piece today. No, I'm not suggesting that the podcast itself be used as a RS, especially with the intentional sarcastic bent of the website, but it's well researched and gives a great number of sources at the bottom of the page (not all would be useful of course, like the WP article or the tangential baseball song recording, but most would be). I don't see why this shouldn't be included in the article in some form. Mapsax (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for responding here (although the talk page for the article may have been even better) rather than starting an edit war. I WAS remiss in not proving an "edit summary" - not to mention my rather sarcastic dismissal of this in the edit summary I finally did give. Not the way I try to work at all. If I make a statement about something being "self-evident" I should be prepared to back up the assumption. On the other hand...

The problem of "trivia" in Wikipedia articles is an ongoing one - adding "not very important and rather peripheral" details like this one can be good fun (at least that is the best reason I can think of myself for doing it). The problem is that it gradually becomes more and more difficult to keep an article "on topic", as more and more odds and ends of this nature get added. The Auld lang syne article is a case in point - there is a regular team of editors hard at word on thst one, especially about this time of year. The problem is not that the "teddy bear scare" is uncited, or even particularly unlikely (alas - idiots continue to proliferate), or even that it might in some contexts be important and relevant (just not here). Could it even have its very own article (does it? afraid I can't be bothered looking) - might it form part of an article on the more general subjects of (say) "Appropriate toys for boys and girls", or "Gender stereotyping"? If it did appear in this form, would we want a link to this article (definitely, I would have thought). Does it actually belong here though? Another question altogether. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I responded here first because of my confusion over the lack or near lack edit summaries, but had intended to post to the talk page in any case. In fact, I'm going to leave a message there as soon as I submit this. I obviously think that some to all of the content goes beyond trivia to some degree, so I'll put links to both the podcast with its source listing and the newspaper article which was in the reverted text on the talk page and let others (including you) judge. Mapsax (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

And to thee, oh Bazookerous one! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Reversions

Sorry, I fail to see why it is so terrible to illustrate the mother of a subject. That it is an image within a particular courtly convention of the day hardly matters. I don't understand your objection. Please explain. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The effect is to illustrate her as the Virgin Mary. I am as aware of the background in art history as you, but this is an article that still attracts a good deal of sectarian (Catholic/Protestant) comment, which we'd want to avoid if possible. Is this is fact a portrait of Catherine of Aragon anyway? And if we have an authenticated picture of her wouldn't a picture of her as a mature woman be more appropriate? Just for starters. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

For the Fallen

Hi there, and I hope your day is going well. I'm just rather confused about your recent revert of my edit to For the Fallen. After I said "nothing wrong with a red-link", You wrote that "Yes there is - when it not only refers to a non-existent article - but a title that would be non-specific if it DID exist." To me, the link (obviously) as it is red, refers to a non-existent article, but is also specific enough, given that there is no other article called 'Authors Declaration' on Wikipedia. While yes, a search of "Authors declaration" comes up with many results on Wikipedia, the only one even remotely notable of an article is the "authors declaration of world war i". Since there are no other logical topics, the natural title for that article would be "Authors Declaration" Would you title it something different? Is there another problem we can resolve? Anyways, happy editing, and best wishes for you to stay safe and healthy. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi! We have both been editing each other's talk pages at once, obviously. "Authors declaration would not be a "natural title" for an encyclopedia article - one would at least have to specify which declaration by which authors, unless the declaration were sufficiently well known for the subject to be self-evident. I have other (offline) matters to attend to but I may get back on this one later. In any case, a sensible rule for redlinks (as well as many other things) must surely be "when in doubt, don't do it!". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Back already. This duplicates my last post on your talk page to keep both threads intelligible. I will put my case as succinctly but comprehensively as I can.
1. Redlinks are inherently pernicious - they should be avoided except in the case when there are genuine reasons why a particular "link" might be useful (e.g. as a reminder to other editors that an important and relevant article is missing and needs to be written - especially if it is one that will attract links from other articles.) In any case the inclusion of a redlink here (or anywhere else) is something that requires a positive cause, not a "why not".)
2. Assuming that an article on this specific subject was ever written, "Authors' declaration" is NOT a natural title for anything (as it stands) - although it could possibly serve as the title of a disambiguation page (?!) The actual title would be something like "Authors' declaration (New York Times - 18 September 1914), or perhaps "Authors' declaration (justifying British entry into the First World War") anything, in fact, that gave a reasonable indication of the subject of the article. Thus the (blue) link would be something like authors' declaration.
3. The declaration itself is extremely obscure - the case for an article on it (however named) to be included might well run into "notability" questions. Details relevant to this article are already part of the text anyway.

Sorry if this seems like taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Might as well leave it be. There're plenty of other articles for me to write. Best wishes and happy editing, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

"when in doubt, don't do it!" I like that :). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

A saying of my old mum, I think. In any case it obviously has a VERY wide application! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Please stop reverting correct edits

Hi- please stop reverting sound edits. If you don't agree, please discuss with me. Usage is correct in the example. Idioms are peculiar to a language. You also restored a clear error here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Purcell&diff=945271047&oldid=945194621, in which you refer to 'Purcell's legacy' as 'he'. Please only revert errors. If you disagree, please discuss, as per my user page.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Not worth arguing in this case on second thoughts, although next time please raise anything like this on the talk page for the article - that's what it's for. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Having said that, I notice you did go to the talk page for the article, as I have, this is the place to discuss the matter raised. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Requesting expansion and update edit support

Hi,

Season's greetings

I am looking for proactive expansion and update support/input help the following (So far neglected but important topic) articles, if possible. Even if you feel your focus area bit different still contribution of few line may help bring in some different perspective and also help Wikipedia goal of neutrality. If you can't spare time but if you know any good references you can note those on talk pages.

• Islamic advice literature

This has been posted on your talk page since, one of article review suggested to have more diverse editor participation to have more inclusive, neutral and balanced worldview (Including that of Gender issues)

Your user ID was selected randomly (for sake of neutrality) from related other articles changes list related to Literature.

Thanks, warm regards and greetings

Bookku (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Be careful! :-)

I went and took care of the situation on the Aladdin article and blocked the IP range 37.239.16.0/21 for edit warring and disruptive editing. Obviously, you were trying to do your best to handle the situation, and it doesn't make it easy that this user was changing IP addresses. However, this falls into a content dispute, not vandalism. The user was adding content and with a source, which should signal to us that if the information is wrong, that we need to discuss the problem and take actions from there. You could've been drug into the "hot water" that is edit warring, and I obviously don't want to see that happen to you. Given what I've seen, I think the best judgment call to make here is to just remind you to be careful and to remember that content disputes aren't exempt from 3RR. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Warning taken in good part, although he went 3RR first! Thanks for responding, anyway. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Rn

Please add your signature at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 8! Those discussions are best thought of as a theatrical performance where the pretence is that we are not voting, but merely discussing technical matters based on policies. That is, it would be better to mention a (brief) reason that {{rn}} is useful. Johnuniq (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Missed signing that post - she who must be obeyed called me for breakfast! Yeah, I know the "vote" is not formal - but I thought it might be worth recording anyway. My "reasons" are recorded up near the top of the thread - didn't think it appropriate to repeat them. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Xcalibur (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I am always open to requests for help on my talk page - but in this case my patience, which is far from infinite, has long gone. The "dispute", in so far as it ever was a dispute and not an obsession of yours, has in my own estimation long been resolved. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Your revert at Synchronization gear

I've responded on the talk page, please let me know if you have any further questions on this. FOARP (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

One Thousand and One Nights

Hi, I saw Chas. Caltrop (talk · contribs)'s major editing at One Thousand and One Nights, against a pretty stable version of the article's lede, and the resultant revert war with you, since you who wish to preserve the established version. Unfortunately, I'm not a subject expert and I have had little involvement with such content disputes, but here's some documentation about resolving content disputes which you and Chas. Caltrop might like to consider. Perhaps, as a first step, you might take the matter to the article's talk page and engage in constructive dialogue? Esowteric+Talk 08:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The real trouble was Chas. Caltrop (talk · contribs)'s rejection of the pretty much universal scholarly consensus on the "orphan tales" (Aladdin etc.), which lack original Arabic texts, and were inserted by Galland. Changing what the lede says while leaving the body of the text as it was seems even sillier. On the other hand until the rubbish gets "re-reverted" it seems charitable to assume that he has seen the error of his ways and leave arguments in the talk page until they actually prove necessary! Keeping fingers crossed, anyway. Thanks for your interest, and the sound advice. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I think until this issue is sorted out through talk page dialogue (or, if necessary, an admin noticeboard), I'll try to ensure that we keep the established version of the text, without getting myself in an edit war. Esowteric+Talk 08:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Time out: Diversion

Literally, just for fun: What is the connection (however tenuous) between the première performances of Trial by Jury and the proximate cause of the outbreak of World War One? NB The WP article, although gold starred, is utterly devoid of the necessary information. PS Trial was my first attempt at conducting. Ever since that hectic performance I have always reckoned it a triumph if everyone gets to the final barline at exactly the same time. PPS If you get really stuck, you could always have a look at my recent contribs, although the complete answer is not there either. If you know of a similar unlikely connection, using the internet only but including resources available to wp:editors such as jstor etc, I might enjoy the challenge.

PPPS I don't do barnstars, but here's a couple of pics of a barn near where I used to live. MinorProphet (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)