User talk:Soundofmusicals

I have gone through this and deleted some old (and even recent) stuff that no longer really applies.

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

Nonetheless - for all your good work and many valuable contributions - A Kitten for you! --- Professor JR (talk) 07:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Face it - homophobes would be rather restricted in their choice of music! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

I didn't remove it - please read the edit itself! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

=arch 2020 (UTC)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please could you tell me what is un-"Clean" about my edit of the above subject, after I followed what I saw was the right advice from the previous Editor ? Thank you. Heath St John (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although your edit is an improvement on the first version that was reverted by Escape Orbit - at least it makes better sense - and does not confuse "lang" and "syne" - it still misleadingly confuses two distinct dialects, Scots language and Middle English. One is essentially a regional variant of English, even if it is considered a language in its own right - the other is an archaic language from which both modern Scots and modern English are derived. Many words and phrases are common to all three "languages/dialects": in fact "old long since" is still perfectly good, if rather old fashioned, English. Your edit would therefore add nothing to the existing text.

The poem's Scots title may be translated into standard English as "old long since" or, less literally, "long long ago".

My edit summary could have been better worded, all the same. Hope that this explanation is clearer. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you. I quite see how the quotation you refer to acknowledges both Scots. and English influences; but I disagree that the mention of "Middle English" 's specific elements, (like "Lang", etc.), by specifying from which era of English the words come, fails to develop the song's language origins. I'll look again, and if it does mention 'Middle English', very well; but if not, it certainly should do. To do so, in this work which culturally straddles the UK's borders, and internationally unites people in celebration, should suggest the united Scots. and English contributions to the title which in its turn unites people further afield. Heath St John (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the paragraph is to translate Burns' Scots "Auld Lang Syne" into standard English - so that English speaking readers can understand what it means. The literal equivalent is simply "Old long since". (Or perhaps "long, long ago" or something similar.) Modern standard English does not "contribute" to the title, it just happens to have a very simple equivalent. This is a very important idea to get across right at the beginning of the article as some people who sing the song every year seem to imagine (for instance) that "lang" has a connection with "land", or that "syne" means "sake". This is a simple point and needs to be made clearly, which the current text already does. There is really and truly no need to go into Middle English or Old English (or even French, Latin or Hebrew for that matter) at least not at this point in the lede. We could perhaps add something like your edit to the first of the notes at the foot of the "Lyrics" section. That is where it would belong if it was necessary. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In those lands, Israel, France, etc., ( probably not Ethiopia), I hope very much the song's intent, (if not the Scotish and (Middle)-English words), unite them in a non-alcoholic-induced camaraderie. I've adopted your suggestion, and put it there. Thanks for your interest. Heath St John (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm a little confused by your note here (like what have Israel, France or Ethiopia to do with the case here? And NON-alcohol-induced camraderie? You've got to be joking... What I was actually questioning was the relevance of Middle English). But seriouslye, since you made a further edit and credited me for it, I have actually added something to "the first of the notes at the foot of the 'Lyrics' section" - just to indicate how something like this is done. Not sure it will survive - someone else may very well delete it as "doubling up" on a minor point. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soundofmusicals Hello, there. I ran into an intriguing discussion the other day about when do decades begin? You know where I am going with this. I would like to propose a change on the comprehension of said topic on Wikipedia wide level. With the purpose to correct decade-related sports records regarding beginning and ending of any record by decade and/or century, especially in tennis and well, frankly, ubiquitously. To convince the mass, that decades last(ed) from XX01 - XX09, not XX00 - XX10, and so forth for centuries and millenia, as well. To break the spell of this common worldwide misconception about time, which I, correct me if I am wrong, is called Mandella effect. Anyway, what do you think on the proposal? Are you willing to help me out, or what? Yours sincerely, Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Is it really a "common worldwide misconception about time?". Good luck with it if this really is the case. well out of my appointed beat, anyway. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well then. At least I asked. Was nice talking to you. Take care. Bye. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand the consensus, the article would not display the image in the infobox,and there was a great deal of discussion concerning collapsibility and warnings. Am I mistaken? Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiEagle

The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter

Volume I — Issue 1
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle
Announcements After over a decade of silence, the WikiProject Aviation newsletter is making a comeback under the name The WikiEagle. This first issue was sent to all active members of the project and its sub-projects. If you wish to continue receiving The WikiEagle, you can add your username to the mailing list. For now the newsletter only covers general project news and is run by only one editor. If you wish to help or to become a columnist, please let us know. If you have an idea which you believe would improve the newsletter, please share it; suggestions are welcome and encouraged. On 16 December, an RfC was closed which determined theaerodrome.com to be an unreliable source. The website, which is cited over 1,500 articles, mainly on WWI aviation, as of the publishing of this issue. Luft46.com has been added to the list of problematic sources after this discussion. The Jim Lovell article was promoted to Featured Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Hawkeye7. The Raymond Hesselyn article was promoted to Good Article status on 4 December after being nominated by Zawed. The Supermarine Sea King article was promoted to Good Article status on 22 December after being nominated by Amitchell125. The William Hodgson (RAF officer) article was promoted to Good Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Zawed.
Members New Members KingAviationKid (Joined on 17 December) PatrickChiao (Joined on 22 December) Wp9097 (Joined on 16 December) Number of active members: 386. Total number of members: 921. Closed Discussions Featured Article assessment Jim Lovell (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 26 December 2021 Good Article assessment HAL Tejas (discussion) – Closed as not promoted on 30 December 2021 William Hodgson (RAF officer) (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 26 December 2021 Supermarine Sea King (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 22 December 2021 Raymond Hesselyn (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 4 December 2021 Deletion Timeline of Berlin Brandenburg Airport's construction (discussion) – Closed as delete and redirect on 30 December 2021 Evergreen International Airlines Flight 17 (discussion) – Closed as keep on 25 December 2021 Requested moves Akbarpur (Ambedkar Nagar) Airstrip → Akbarpur Airstrip (discussion) – Closed as moved on 30 December 2021 1983 Avensa Douglas DC-9 crash → Avensa Flight 007 (discussion) – Closed as moved on 30 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 035 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 035 (discussion) – Withdrawn on 28 December 2021	Article Statistics This data reflects values from DMY. Aviation pages by quality Quality Total FA 142 FL 15 A 56 GA 505 B 4,573 C 11,878 Start 15,082 Stub 18,754 List 2,539 Category 11,638 Disambig 653 File 2,713 Portal 629 Project 89 Redirect 1,518 Template 2,489 NA 66 Assessed 73,339 Unassessed 1 Total 73,340 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 250,759 Ω = 4.93
New/Ongoing Discussions Featured Article review D. B. Cooper (discussion) – Since 14 December 2021 A-class Article assessment Granville Gee Bee Model A (discussion) – Since 21 April 2020 List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War (discussion) – Since 22 February 2010 Good Article assessment Romanian Air Corps (discussion) – Since 25 December 2021 Jean Batten (discussion) – Since 2 October 2021 Merger proposals List of astronauts by name → List of astronauts by year of selection (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021 List of cosmonauts → List of space travelers by nationality (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021 List of space travelers by name → List of space travelers by nationality (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021 Holidays Czech Airlines → Czech Airlines (discussion) – Since 23 June 2021 Bendix Aviation → Bendix Corporation (discussion) – Since 30 May 2021 Airport Movement Area Safety System → Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (discussion) – Since 29 May 2021 ASDE-X → Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (discussion) – Since 28 May 2021 Splitting proposals Family Airlines (discussion) – Since 23 November 2021 2021 Kabul airport attack (discussion) – Since 24 September 2021 List of military aircraft of the United States (discussion) – Since 16 August 2021 Braniff International Airways (discussion) – Since 8 September 2019 Deletion List of maiden voyages (discussion) – Since 29 December 2021 Requested moves Hot-air balloon → Hot air balloon (discussion) – Since 30 December 2021 Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 108 → Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 109 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 150 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 150 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 206 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 206 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 708 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 708 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 892 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 892 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 TWA Flight 800 → TWA Flight 800 (1996) (discussion) – Since 27 December 2021 Dynamic Airways Flight 405 → Dynamic International Airways Flight 405 (discussion) – Since 26 December 2021 CommutAir Flight 4281 → CommutAir Flight 4821 (discussion) – Since 25 December 2021 Thai Airways → Thai Airways International (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021 Thai Airways fleet → Thai Airways International fleet (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021 List of Thai Airways destinations → List of Thai Airways International destinations (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021 Did you know Ravish Malhotra (discussion) – Since 30 December 2021 Alexander Tahy (discussion) – Since 26 December 2021 Veronica Volkersz (discussion) – Since 6 December 2021 Rudolf Szepessy-Sokoll (discussion) – Since 3 December 2021 On The Main Page Did you know... ... that the aerobatic demonstration aircraft used by SoloTürk is also used in military operations of the Turkish Air Force? (24 December)
Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list. Newsletter contributor: ZLEA

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask you why did you delete my edit? Yritu (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it does not make very much sense - an edit that does not improve an article will (hopefully) be changed or deleted by someone - that is how Wikipedia works. Otherwise, if every edit any of us made was allowed to stand without scrutiny then the whole idea of "an encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone" would be nonsense. I suggest that if you want to edit an article in future it may be an idea to raise the idea first as a query on the talk page for the article and see what your fellow editors think. Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I thought it better to discuss here rather than the tp, as this is a grammar issue.

'Purcell's style was a uniquely English form of Baroque music.'

This is wrong, as it uses a noun (uniquely English form of Baroque music) to describe Purcell's style. Ignore the adjectives that describe the music and you'll see what I mean. You need an adjective to describe 'style' and there isn't one.

It seems you might be confused by the possessive 'Purcell's'?

'Jonathan's was a particularly delicious lunch'. The subject is 'Jonathan's lunch'. The sentence is good. At the moment, you would have it say 'Jonathan's style was a particularly delicious lunch'. Please don't restore the error. 'Purcell's was a uniquely English form of Baroque music' is good. Including 'style' is a mistake. NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor who lives up to his name made this comment after trying to help resolve a conflict over binary prefixes (megabytes, MB, MiB, etc) that's been going on far too long (and I've been regrettably involved in sometimes). Thought you might appreciate it! NebY (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]