(I've just wiped my talk file up to the end of 2012 - in the most unlikely event that anyone wants to raise anything earlier - pull up an older version from "history")
I did what I could for it, but someone would have to go to the library to really sort it out. There is conflicting information online regarding several points. For example, how long did the Manchester preview run? When exactly did Littlewood quit? Did Bart really do any of the directing, and if so was it before or after Littlewood left? Did Littlewood do any of the writing of what ended up in the book? Were there "previews" in London before the official opening? Much of the information's time frame was vague, and I was not sure what happened in Manchester, in London previews, if any, and on the official opening night, so the Production section now represents my best guess. You could try to add the information about which characters sang which songs by looking at the cast album. I am not watching the article, so ping me if you have any questions. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just discovered that the early drafts of the article appear to have contained substantial copyvios and plagiarism from this, all of which had been attributed to Roper's book. I've fixed it now, but it makes the article's heavy reliance on the Roper book seem a little dicey. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the question of usage arises
Hello, my tuneful friend,
I noted your latest edit summary on Manfred von Richthofen. In hopes of finally finding a basis for affixing a {British-English} or {American-English} tag on the Talk page, I followed edit History back to the article's founder. As you recall, WP policy is that if a Brit began it, it should follow British usage; if an American, then American usage. (And please recall from previous chats, I hold no brief for either usage.)
The result was one unforeseen by the policy makers. A Brazilian began this article, not a Brit nor a Yank. Back to square one. So I suppose the only solution for the usage confusion in this article is a consensus on one way or another.
I really think they should pick one or the other and keep Wiki to that. I would prefer "standard" English - but look, I could live with (good) Yank usage, if they can agree what it is, be consistent, and steer clear of illiterate barbarisms. At least you'd know where you were. Consistency is after all the name of the game.
The policy of not changing the usage of an article - and leaving it in the usage of the author does have a certain logic to it, but it's essentially a rule of convenience and (I think) it should only apply for subjects that don't have a a strong cultural, historical or geographical context. The object is (I think) probably just to avoid people switching articles from one to the other, or changing the odd word. In fact I would be happy to have it relaced with a blanket rule that all such articles be in standard English (or, if you like, U.S. usage) - see above.
The "ties" rule, if we must have it, is clear as to U.S. and British subjects, although even here we are in a bind - should Scottish subjects be in Scots, for instance - there is a perfectly good rationale for this - but the result would be that almost nobody, even most Scottish people, would be able to read these articles. On the whole, I favour the use of U.S. usage for all clearly "American" subjects (in the widest sense) including Canadian, Mexican, Brazillian etc etc. Similarly - "European English" should apply for European subjects. Including this one. Personally I don't like the ties rule at all - but if we're going to have it - let's stick with it.
I am quite aware of your views about setting usage. However, for my example above I followed WP policy derived from the consensus of earlier editors–and found a big gap in the policy. Apparently, no one foresaw that an ESL (English as second language) user might begin an article.
The common sense thing here, surely, is to ignore nationality of original authorship (since it simply isn't helpful) and go by "ties". Especially since Britain joined the EU there are political and well as geographic reasons why it is not very logical to use U.S. usage for an essentially European topic. really as simple as that. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for jumping in here, but I concur, foreign subject: international standards of language/spelling, dates, measures; U.S. subject: predominately U.S. language/spelling variants. I have recently come across a similar subject where the original article about a French record-breaking aircraft was written by an American (an admin, with the article reaching GA status, no less), whose use of US-isms predominated; it took an immense amount of effort to have the article re-written. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Hello,
I realize the two of you tend to ignore the WP community's consensus on usage, but that's not my point about this article. If you believe it belongs in Brit usage, slap the appropriate usage tag on it. And if you object to the community consensus on langage usage, how about reopening it in a Request for Comments?
As it is, American usage in an article about a French aircraft is perfectly acceptable to the WP community, even if it does not fit your standards. However, it does follow WP MOS.
After looking at the recent revisions, I am extremely skeptical of the validity of these claims. The sources cited are nothing extraordinary and based on them, the statements "fly in the face" of conventional and accepted history of the type. Having a plethora of poorly written and oddly cited submissions does not bolster the case for the new editor's supposition that everything previously written or researched has been wrong. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
The "general" rule is: "In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so." There are so many problems with different size monitors that normally hard-coding an inline image isn't used. There are different parameters for the use of infobox images. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Taken, but in this case there IS a reason for defining size - at anything like a standard size it is so tiny as to be a waste of time, due to its unusual shape (very wide, but "shallow". I have tried it in different screen resolutions and the display seem to cope nicely - with the picture resizing itself. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then an "invisible: note may be inserted, as WP:Aviation group long ago decided that images shouldn't be "forced" and that "hard coding" was becoming an issue. I can't recall an aviation-related article with anything other than the default size in use. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only image I recall that was ever shown in a "panoramic" view, and even that was eventually changed. Just sayin', the image cops are still out there. B-36J AF Serial Number 52-2220 on display in the Cold War Gallery at the National Museum of the United States Air ForceFWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are in fact many images in other articles where this is done (O.K. I know this is NOT inherently a good excuse, but the fact is they are there and nobody seems to complain that they don't display well). I'm not entering into this lightly or wantonly, just that this is a wonderful image - and it seems a shame not to have it worthily displayed. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally - I have tried to clean up the article itself a bit - while I (obviously) agree with you about the edits as we got them - in fact my initial reaction was to simply revert, I think the "grain or two of truth" inherent in "our" use of poor (Treadwell) and "good but dated" (Cheesman) sources did need adressing. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a few years ago, some of the variances were acceptable, but as a general rule, stressing "general", putting any hard coding on images just opens the doors to any and all sizes just messing with the graphic layouts of an article. I know a number of "just the facts ma'am" folks that strictly adhere to the no "hard-coding" standard. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
BTW, what's the problem with a user simply clicking on the image to see it in full resolution; click on the B-36 image to show you what I mean. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
All very well - but who goes clicking on images? A more likely reaction from "Mr/Ms typical user" would be simply "Why have they got that scrubby little picture there?". Your invisible note is a good idea to (perhaps) head off the "just the facts ma'am" folks at the pass. And I couldn't agree more about the "general rule". The MOS does however mention "unless there is a good reason" - and for a good reason, I suspect. Let's see what happens, anyway. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having said all this - I've cut the size a bit - to allow greater leeway for different screen sizes/resolutions. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image tagging for File:Nieuport 28s of the 95th.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Nieuport 28s of the 95th.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:
In researching some of the online resources on the aircraft type, I stumbled upon "The Nieuport 28." which is the likely source for where our mutual friend "cribbed" his statements. Note the close paraphrasing. My "BS meter" was going off the scale when I first saw the revisions, now I know why. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Not so much "close paraphrasing" as direct plagarism! Just as well we cleaned this up between us. None the less, it IS a much better article now!! I was interested in those performance figures, by the way - until I noticed they were achieved on a lighter prototype rather than a service machine with full operational load. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FURTHER to this - the reference covering ten pages of the Hamady book (http://www.amazon.com/Nieuport-28-Americas-First-Fighter/dp/0764329332) was itself pulled from an aerodrome forum page. I don't believe he has the book, or that he has read it. On the other hand this does seem to be the answer - Somebody probably has to read this one, not just pick up references to it from a forum - if fixing this article is going to work. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's really unfair that many countries have their own section because of international versions of auld lang syne that are only sung in universities or parades, while "jipy jay" is sung all over Peru, has very distinctive peruvian music (but still with the main tune of ALS), and it's usually sung as a farewell song (see videos on youtube if you are unsure).
Thanks!
Juanmaklaot (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The place for this kind of discussion (especially when it is already going) is the talk page for the article concenred. I hope you don't mind, but I have copied your remarks above to that page - and answered you there. Best wishes. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maitreya claimants are Bodhisattva which seems to have caused an edit war
Yes, recently I was helping categorize urn categorized Bodhisattas or rather uncategorized Bodhisattva claimants in the Bodhisattvas category. This has needlessly lead to an edit war. For example, if a person claims to be Akashagarbha, Avalokiteshvara, Kshitigarbha, Mahastamaprapta, Maitreya, Manjushri, Samatabahadra, Sarvanivaraavishkambin, or any other bodhisattva, that's a bodhisattva claim, even if it isn't explicitly specified as such on that particular page. One of the three edit warriors claim there was no such claim on the page, to Bodhisattvahood, but as explained earlier there is a claim to Maitreyahood on the page which is the same thing actually. I'll copy and past this to the talk pages of all three edit warriors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.88.11 (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for January 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nieuport 28, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dihedral (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for February 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fokker Scourge, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Roland Garros and DH.2 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pantomime
Hi. This article is confusing with respect to the origin and chronology of the genre, many sections are very listy, and the article is badly under-referenced. Indeed, I think it contains much frankly dubious material. As to the current chronology issue, in the 18th century, the harlequinade was, according to Crowther, *not* the dominant part of the entertainment. Grimaldi was instrumental in making it so early in the 19th century, but later in the 19th century, the fairy story again became dominant, so I have now changed the statement to just the 1800s. I hope to give the article some attention at some point, if I can get to it. In the meantime, I have added several actual references, which is, at least, a start. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Coherence, consistency, and comprehensibility are the three things without which all didactic writing is gibberish. Getting the facts right, and referencing them properly, are also vital, but if (as can happen in the best intentioned wikipedia article) the well referenced facts are insufficiently well chosen to hang together, or contradict each other, or in some other way tend to confuse the ordinarily intelligent reader, if, in fact, the overall impression is that the author of the article (even the kind of "collective author" we find on WP) doesn't really have any idea what "he" is talking about, then... But of course you know all this as well as I do. I am delighted that someone of your very considerable ability has chosen to sweep up this untidy article, but please do it in the light of the "three Cs". (repeated on Ssilvers'page) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning your correction: Sorry for the misspelling, but I don't really understand what you mean by "out of period" language?! --KnightMove (talk) 11:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No big deal - I meant the verb "deploy" - which is pretty recent - and which I personally wouldn't use in an historical article like this. I had no problems whatever with mentioning the Dr.I here - I nearly just corrected your spelling, but when I got down to it felt it could be put more succinctly. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just an idea...
Hello, I see you are revamping the pantomime article, hoorah! Just an idea, but I recently added this File:Sketches from the 1891 Pantomime at Drury Lane by Phil May.jpg and thought you might like to use it. I haven't added it for obvious reasons. Great idea to recondition the article by the way, and if I can be of any help please message me. -- CassiantoTalk 13:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually the illustrious Ssilvers doing all the work - I am but an interested spectator really. You might like to run the suggestion past him if you have not already done so.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will. I didn't actually know he had initiated the idea. The lucky blighter is off on a short break so I will offer my services when he gets back. Best as always! -- CassiantoTalk 23:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some edits, mainly sweeping and dusting. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, som,
Read through current version. Admire the specificity of it. The bit enumerating the low number of initial casualties inflicted by the Fokkers is fascinating. I wonder if you have considered adding this info to the Luftstreitkräfte article. It might be especially interesting if overclaiming of victories was already in effect...right from the start of aerial warfare. Also, there seemed to be an "ace race" right from the start; that might also be an interesting sidelight to portray. And there is no current description of the evolution of the Jadgstaffeln.
Thanks everyone - hopefully we'll be allowed to keep what is now one of the better WWI articles (if I do say so myself - no one ever said I was ever cursed with false modesty) without further jealous pique from people who should know better.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A very nice little bit indeed. I compared drafts, and admired how you sharpened Dap's draft with specifics. He shouldn't be hurt by the fact you improved his draft of the article; that's what WP is all about. I've been on both ends of that stick, and no complaints here.
Are you going to push this article into assessment?
Georgejdorner (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am not sure at all how to contact you, so I apologize if making an edit here is incorrect. I just had a quick (albeit petty) question regarding the Fokker Scourge article. A few days ago I reworded the last sentence of the first paragraph from
"Significant as the technical advantage of the new fighter was, the psychological effect of its unheralded introduction was also a major factor."
to
"The significance of the technical advantage of the new fighter was the psychological effect of its unheralded introduction."
you reverted the change back to the original, however the wording still doesn't make sense to me. I didn't think my edit changed the meaning of the sentence - just reworded it to make sense. Can you explain why my edit was incorrect? You seem far more active and knowledgeable on wikipedia standards and edits than I am so I I'm just trying to figure out where I went wrong so I don't repeat the same mistake in the future. Thanks.
Also, if this isn't how I'm supposed to contact you can you please let me know where I should contact you in the future? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asaydjari (talk • contribs) 04:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the original sense of the sentence is unclear to you (i.e. you genuinely have difficulty understanding what it means) then how, pray tell, can you express its meaning better? Perhaps if we put it into two separate sentences? "The technical advantage was significant. The psychological impact was another matter, and also significant". The trouble with your edit is that the meaning is rather different from that of the original, and not what we quite what we want to say. The technical advantage was in fact relatively small, compared with the surprise of its existing at all, on the other hand the advantage was far from a total illusion, its significance existed quite apart from the psychological effect.
you are of course welcome to contact me on this page, but for this kind of question is always greatly preferable to use the talk page for the article concerned (in this case the talk page of Fokker Scourge). That way others will be able to contribute to the discussion. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job on cleaning up the article. I am not quite certain how it got to such a state; I recall leaving it in good order. I extended the lead a bit, to include his latter life.
I am a bit amazed/amused by your aversion to the word "airplane". Do today's Brits still write and say "aeroplane"?
Yes, aeroplane is totally the "standard" English word every where but in the U.S. and (perhaps?) Canada. As is "aerodynamics", "aerodyne", "aerostat" and many other words which it were tedious to rehearse (hem hem). Even in Australia, where we're much more tolerant of Americanisms than in the "old sod", "airplane" is almost comically illiterate. In fact I suspect there are some people wouldn't even identify it "up front" as an Americanism at all - and just look on it as a childish misspelling - the way a three or four year old would say it. Hence all the trouble they've been having over the "Airplane" article - it had the title "Fixed wing aircraft" or something like that for a long time. I must admit I thought for years that "airplane" was in the same category as "sox" (for "socks") - a kind of "joke" spelling than even the septic tanks didn't take seriously. Oh dear... Anyway, since the word "aircraft" is "trans Atlantic" - and in most contexts means the same thing we can usually get away with that, which is what I did here, of course. Libby himself, interestingly, uses "plane" and "ship" in the passages we quote in the article - neither of which would be MOS except in a direct quote, but not "airplane". I might re-read my copy of "horses" to check if he uses it there at all. Funnily enough, "aeroplane" was standard American when the word in Britain was "flying machine" (usually abbreviated to "machine"). Perhaps we'll adopt "airplane' some time down the track to find that you people are calling them "wooshbangs" or something. More to the point - glad you didn't notice anything drastically wrong with the article. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, g'day to you too, som,
I inquired because in the American lexicon, "aeroplane" is of the same vintage as "horseless carriage", and is used about as frequently in our discourse.
However, to pay due credit to your ability to pick the correct word, I must admire your latest edit to this article. I was angling for an adjective when I used "false"; you hooked "unfounded", for which I was fishing. My compliments, sir.
Good to hear from you. Because of the almost Parisian emphasis on the letter "R" in most American dialects of English the there is a lot less difference in pronunciation than might appear between (say) an Australian saying "aeroplane" and a Septic saying "airplane". To us the word "air" doesn't have an "R" sound at all, so if we spelled it the same way as you people we'd say something like "epplayn", or even "upplayn", with a drawling emphasis on the last syllable. Currently we pronounce it something like "Erraplayn", with the first and last syllables stressed, and the "a" in the middle very short and lightly stressed, in fact almost mute. Either way, it's the same word, of course, the problem is entirely one of spelling. The Australian variety of illiteracy tends strongly towards pronouncing words, especially ones with a Greek etymology, as we imagine they're spelled - like saying "hyperbole" as "High-per-bowl" which grates with an elderly intellectual like me MUCH worse than any Americanism. (Why can't they just say "zadjarayshun"!) "Aeroplane" was of course itself originally an Americanism in non-U.S. English anyway, which fact I alluded to gracefully above.
Again much more to the point - calling the fears of a widower father who lost his wife to tuberculosis and no doubt noticed some of the same symptoms in his son "false" is a bit brutal, of course the man was (perfectly justifiably) anxious. In fact on re-reading the article (after enjoying "Horses" again, and wanting to check we'd got the man's Wiki article about right) it struck me as a positively bizarre word misuse, not right at all. Glad you agree that "unfounded" is much better, anyway. Perhaps we do speak the same language (really) after all. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe we share a dedication toward seeing our respective brands of English are well-written.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Friday, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black Friday (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FE2
No biggie on my part, I was just using a "standard" appellation from the Aviation Project Group, but this is Wickywackywonderland, after all, so make the change, I'm OK with it. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your Danish version is almost certainly a "retelling" of the story, not a direct translation of the original. When a story-teller (or an author, of course) retells a story he or she usually adds little touches like this to make the story their own. If you can find the change in the story you want to introduce in a direct translation from the Arabic (preferably, since this is the English Wikipedia, an English translation) then you might be able to add it - but then we would need a footnote to the book you used. Another thing is would this detail be notable - i.e. does it really have anything to do with the story? Some people might think not - the retelling of a story in an article like this needs to be short and to the point. (NOT the way I'd spin it out if I were telling it to my grandchildren, for instance). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
Hi Soundofmusicals. Before to start explaining the notion of the "Russian Jews" and its usage in the article, please check my commentary on the talk page with another user who has recently asked me to explain the same issue. The ambiguity derives from the clear-cut definition of many other modern nationalities, which determines a person to be part of a nation if he or she is associated with the country or the region where that nation was formed. Thus, a person is German if he or she is associated with Germany, French if he or she is associated with France or Russian if he or she is associated with Russia. However, the same does not apply for the Russian Jews who are an ethnolinguistic group of Jews whose native language is Russian. In this sense, Russian is used to denote the primary language used in the family and not the country of origin. Most of the Russian Jews come from the territories that were part of the Russian Empire (some of them specifically from Russia in its borders today), but there are also many that have laid there ancestry in these territories and immigrated to other countries, mostly in the United States, France or Israel. For more information you should also check the article about Russian Jews. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough if we were talking about Gershwin's parents, who were Ukrainian, but we're not. If we carried your argument to its logical conclusion there would be no such thing as American nationality except for pure blooded Native Americans since everyone else in America has European or African ancestry (or both, of course). Americans of Italian ancestry, for instance, are not designated "Italian Catholics", nor are Americans whose parents came from Belfast lumped with "Irish Protestants". They are sometimes called Italian-Americans, or (less often) Irish-Americans - but I have never heard of a Russian-American. Gershwin was certainly not "Russian" by any definition he would have recognised himself. Incidentally - this is my talk page, and not the correct place to discuss something like this. I will copy this to the proper place - the talk page for the article concerned, and I would appreciate your continuing the discussion there, "in public". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Soundofmusicals. Calling me a "crusader with a bee in his bonnet" is not something that assumes good faith and respect to the other users on Wikipedia. I confess to have been sharp in the discussion, but haven't used similar idioms to direct a personal attack as you apparently did when leaving a comment in the edit summary. Please be careful in the future! Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it was inappropriate language - and I am bound to apologise. Edit summaries are trickier places for this sort of thing as they are added in the spur of the moment and there is no taking them back once they're made. On the other hand some of your own remarks (not to me, but to other editors) on the open talk page, have also not been very conducive to the assumption of good faith. Pots calling kettles black and all that. Not that I mean that as any excuse, 'cause it's not, but ... I haven't looked yet, but I do hope any response to my remarks there was taken in the kindly spirit in which they were meant. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your apology is accepted! The main reason why we're here, after all, is to work together to improve the content on Wikipedia. Best.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just finished some additions to this article that may strike your interest. You did mention working on a rewrite of Interrupter gear, did you not?
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:WW1Immelmann.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The PRECIOUS has been found...all THREE of them!
File:Lsda.jpgWW I AERO issues 137, 138 and 142 are "all three of them"......now imagine our friend Smeagol reaching for a Parabellum MG14 and a Stangensteuerung instead, in this one!
Dear Soundofmusicals:
The PIPE Here...just to let you know, a bit of very determined searching in my still disastrous-looing bedroom managed to find WW I AERO issues #137, #138 AND #142 this Friday evening...so THE PRECIOUS trio of Hank Volker-authored gun synchronizer articles in that trio of issues of WW I AERO are very close to hand at this very moment!!
My HP ScanJet 3C WILL be "busy" over the next week of time, of that you can be certain!
VERY exciting news indeed!! Looking forward to them. Hoping, of course, for a few informational "gap fillers", but just having these for the sake of additional sources of citations will also be great. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Soundofmusicals:
The PIPE Here once again - thanks to some very hard work with my scanner, Corel Photo-Paint 12 and MS Word 2003 on my PC during this weekend, the first and second of the three articles is, as of this Sunday afternoon (11.8.2013) here in Southern New England, all ready to send out to you as an MS Word 2003 ".doc" file of just about 5.1 megabytes (the second is at 3.3 MB) - please let me know where you'd like it sent along so it gets to you, unless you'd also want it as an Adobe PDF file, which WILL require a "print-to-disk" procedure with my FinePrint pdfFactory software to achieve.
MS Word files will do fine. If you could attach them to emails, my address is *********. I don't think there will be "size" problems, but if there are you might zip them. Have you looked at the article again? I have got a bit more finished (well, "first drafted" at least) and done some rearranging. Just knowing you are looking at my work is giving me a bit of motivation. I am still planning to do all the references in one go when the text itself is pretty well finalised. Really am most grateful you have found these for me. Best wishes. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This "thing" just keeps growing and GROWING...
Dear Soundofmusicals:
The PIPE Here yet again - when I was doing the initial scanning of Part 3 of the Hank Volker "synchronizers" series of treatises, the first page of text that opens part 3 partly read, "A forthcoming Part IV in the series on Firing Through the Prop will deal with the theory of machine gun synchronization...", so some more searching at WW I Aero's site led to discovering that indeed a "Part 4" exists, but ALSO a "Part 5 and Part 6" were published by the late Mr. Volker as well, with the remaining trio of portions to be found in my copies of WW I AERO issues #145, #148 AND #154 from the 1990s, all now sitting near my computer for scanning. Parts 1 and 2 are all formatted in MS Word, with Part 3 now all scanned and to be cleaned up for MS Word formatting later on Monday (12.8.2013). Parts 4 through 6 will be scanned and formatted-up during the week as time permits, and placed in separate MS Word documents to complete what is actually a SIX part series...I'd suppose that it can't get any better than that !
Got to get back to cleaning up & formatting-up the Part 3 scans and do some more job search...
I have rewritten the interrupter gear article, which was a right mess - bringing it down to its actual subject, among other things. In consultation with some other editors I have been working on it in my sandbox for some time. I also want to use a more appropriate title. "Interrupter" is recognised nowadays as a rather bad term for the thing itself, and "Synchronizer" as a better one - although they have been used interchangeably in the past.
I am having difficulty getting the article to move to the desired title, apparently because the new title is already in use (as a redirect to the old title). I have tried moving the redirect at the desired new name but this doesn't seem to work.
N.B. I have parked the article at "SynchroniSation gear" (S in place of Z) for the moment - but this is definitely NOT the final solutions. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Soundofmusicals, what you need to do in this case is go to the redirect page Synchronization gear, and add ((db-move)) to the top, which will let an admin know that the page should be deleted to make way for a page move. Hope this helps! Howicus (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that - but I already tried a (possibly very naughty) workaround using cut 'n paste!! I THINK I have avoided/fixed any unpleasant side-effects of doing this. You may like to check? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OOPS!!! (see above help topic)
You used the ((Help me)) template, but asked a question that can only be answered by an admin. If you still need help, please add the ((Admin help)) template instead. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join the #wikipedia-en-helpIRC help channel to get real-time assistance. Click here for instant access.
Just found out why I shouldn't have done that cut 'n paste!!!
The history of the old article (very little of which survives in the new, incidentally) is now stuck in what is now purely a redirect page, at "Interrupter gear". try to work out how to move the history over - looks like a job for a specialist. Sorry. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - the history (and the talk page and its history) are now at Synchronizer gear, and all the others are redirects to that. I don't think that leaves any double-redirects, but if there are any a bot will sort them out. Now you have found out why you shouldn't, I'm sure you won't do it again! There is a useful template ((db-move)) you should put on the target article to ask for it to be deleted to make way for a move, the format being ((db-move|page to be moved here|reason)). Regards, JohnCD (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The PIPE here again - glad to see that you got the article up, and recently I've gotten back to the very first article I ever primarily authored at Wikipedia, the Bristol Scout...I'm once again starting to get GOOD references from the Windsock Datafile (No.44) posted up now on that, and perhaps some more scans from my copy will end up on that page very soon!
By the way...I've been busy enough helping out my mother, looking for work AND staying busy around the house, I've had no time even as yet for that Wikipedia "user page"...sometime, when I can find some REALLY usable help on creating such a "user page" at Wikipedia, I could get going on that...might you know of any I could start with, perhaps?
"For these kinds words accept my thanks, I pray..." Have a look at my user page - as well as those of some other people you feel are reasonably sensible editors, and by all means pick my (and their) brains. There are lots of templates that give pretty results.
Sorry to take a while to get back to you, by the way - but I have (obviously) been a bit preoccupied. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some MORE photos of the Bristol Scout are now up at its Wikipedia page - they "pass the muster" of being not only pre-1923 photos by American standards, but the even more recent UK standards of a pre-1943 dating.
No wonder my old RC buddy Hank Iltzsch (left us in the autumn of 2010) decided to do up the Scout D version as an RC Giant Scale (called "large scale" in the UK)...I've got Hank's construction plans for his Scout D model (throughj a 2-part construction article in the USA's Academy of Model Aeronautics national Model Aviation monthly magazine in March & April 1981) as a way to remember him by, and to aid in someday building that Scout C (No.1611) of Lanoe Hawker's from the summer of 1915 someday in 3 inches = 1 foot scale magnificence...!!!
A barnstar would have been in order, but since you appear to be a cat person I hereby give you to a (suitably red-bearded) kitten, for laudable diligence in the article on George Bernard Shaw. May you serve it faithfully.
Isn't that cute. At least it won't walk over my computer keyboard and sit on the desk in front of the monitor, like another cute feline I know does! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know you WERE worried...
The PIPE Here again - when you mentioned to me earlier that you had an ELECTION coming up "down under", was it by any chance the Australian federal election, 2013...and was it one Tony Abbott, whom progressive Americans might think of as part of an Aussie version of the USA's bunch of Tea Party movement hyper-conservatives, that you feared getting elected as Australia's new PM, by any chance?
Just wondering, that's all...
Yours Sincerely,
The PIPE (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, that's EXACTLY what I was talking about...--Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Theory of sonics may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
gear#The Constantinesco synchronization gear|]The Constantinesco synchronization gear]], used on military aircraft in order to allow them to target opponents without damaging their own
:: '''''I''''' = '''''ra'''''Ω (the maximum alternating flow in square centimeters per second; Amplitude of the flow.
I have nominated Albert Ball as a Featured Article candidate. Because you were a major influence on the present text, I have mentioned you on the FAR nomination page as such, with a notation that you are are being invited to become a co-nominator. I would be delighted to have you on board as such.
Is there a process of further assessment and improvement involved? There are two things I am actually concerned about in the current article - one of which you can probably guess, the other is a "new" one I have that has been bothering me since you got the "Good Article" bit through. If these could be "mended" it would greatly reinforce my feelings about trying to get this fine article upgraded to "Featured".
1. I still don't like us seeming to endorse (as opposed to mentioning) the story of Ball dying in the arms of the fair young maiden (or the buxom matron, or whatever she might have been). There are a rack of legends about Ball (many of them of French rather than British origin) and this is quite patently one of them. Honestly, I put this one roughly on a par with the one about his being shot down while consulting the church tower clock. Ideally we would allow for the (rather slim) likelihood of at least one version of the legend (there are more than one) having some grain of truth by adding to our current mention a discreet disclaimer. Perhaps something like "there is a legend that...", or "it is said that...". I know I suggested something like this at the time, and consensus went against me, just taking this opportunity to mention it again.
Pengelly, page 196: "When Hailer and his companions reached the site they found that Ball had already been lifted from the wreckage by a local French girl, Mademoiselle Cecile Delorffe."
Bowyer, pages 211-212: "Hailer and his three companions immediately hurried to the site of the crash, to find Ball's body had already been removed from the wreckage of his machine and laid on the ground by a local French girl. The girl, Madame Lieppe-Colon, had been the first to reach the wrecked aircraft...."
My followup research on these young women did not help me distinguish the actual identity of the woman in question, although it revealed they were both married women with children, and not the dewy maiden of legend.
Nevertheless, if we don't want to keep what I found as a corrective to the romanticized legend, we could drop mention of her entirely. If only to get on with article development.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. The other thing is that I have been reading and researching for a rewrite I am working on of the S.E.5 article, which has brought home how groundless and foolish Ball's prejudice against it was. Nowadays some people even read Ball's comments as "fact", even retailing his conviction that it was the "Ball-modifications" to his own pet S.E. (all of which had to be reversed, except the removal of the semi-enclosure to the cockpit, which was in already in train anyway) that "saved" the S.E. and made it a workable fighter!
My point is that Ball's "disparagement" of the S.E. perhaps needs to be a little more specific, and its irrationality pointed out. The idea that he ever admitted he was wrong about the S.E. is one I can find no good confirmation of, although he does seem to have stopped complaining. The best of us has his flaws (working on the George Bernard Shaw article has brought this home to me) - and a really good "biographical" encyclopedia article needs to at least drop a hint about its subject's faults (in Ball's case his pig-headedness - he seems to have been set to become an incredible "Colonel Blimp" had he lived to his middle years) as well as praising his fine qualities. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, som,
I should think your added info on Ball and the SE.5 could turn out very interesting indeed. It could indeed shed some insights into Ball's personality. However, I think its ultimate location in WP will depend on what you turn up. It is as likely to belong in Royal Aircraft Factory SE.5 as in the Ball article.
I wish, that when you do this, you keep an eye out for a question that has plagued me. That is, Did the brass want to harness Ball's mechanical expertise in solving the SE.5's early problems? Is that (a reason) why his limited assignment back to France?
See why I didn't trust myself to actually find that mention in Pengelly - even with the open text in front of my face? Prejudice does strange things. On consideration, I don't really mind it going in (maybe as a footnote rather than in the main text) provided that the fact that the sources can't agree about little details like who the fair young maiden actually was is clear. I think that could probably be phrased so that we can express sensible cynicism that doesn't look too much like OR. Tend to agree about NOT adding too much to the Ball article about the S.E.5, especially seeing how little we have in it about the AFB.1. We'll see anyway. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A query about machine guns
Hello, som,
While you were working on your notorious gun synchronization article, I wonder if you ran across a specific fact. Did the users of magazine-fed guns such as the Lewis ever complain about the limited ammo thus supplied, or about the deadly distractions of changing magazines?
98 rounds in a "double" Lewis drum was a fair few. The gun would probably have jammed if you tried to let the whole thing off in one burst - not to mention "bluing the barrel (over-heating it so it "lost its temper" and had to be replaced. Wish I could replace a certain person when she loses her temper!) Lewis gunners were trained to fire in short bursts rather than just squeeze the trigger and "hose away" - it was never, on the ground or in the air, "that" kind of gun. The subject of Lewis drums running out at the worst possible moment (and then jamming so they wouldn't come off) did come up of course, but I think generally it was just accepted as a fact of life. One of the reasons some observers liked twin guns is they could fire one gun till it was empty and then the other - I always imagined they fired both together but apparently that often wasn't the case. If any of this is for a Wiki article I could dig you up a reference or two. The book that "no home should be without" if it contains anyone interested in WWI aircraft guns is Early Aircraft Armament by Harry Woodman. It's out of print and very expensive and no you can't have my copy! If you're really lucky you may have access to a library that owns one? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Music Man may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
the other hand, is limited to a single violin and a bass, to accompany some quieter numbers.<ref>[http://www.mtishows.com/show_detail.asp?showid=000053, accessed October 11, 2013</ref><ref>[http://guidetomusicaltheatre.com/shows_m/music_man.htm,accessed October 11, 2013</ref>
As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 50 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Farman
Farman did consider suing Bristol. It's unfortunate that the reference to this in the Boxkite is uncited at present (some zealot has just slapped citation needed articles on a lot of aero articles wherever there is no ref at the end of a para} but the information is kosher & most probably came from Bristol Aircraft Since 1910. I dont have that to hand at the moment but will be fixing the tag in the Boxkite article & will then replace in Farman article.TheLongTone (talk) 08:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just that at this stage there were so many clones of any type that proved halfway practical (including literally dozens of "Farmans". The Farman itself followed the Wright layout, with one or two innovative variations. And the bare statement, as I hinted in my edit summary, is VERY vague. Did Farman have a patent on something unique to their design? The Wrights of course wanted to sue everyone who used any kind of lateral control - they even got a court ruling at one stage that every American company building aircraft should pay them royalties. I believe Curtis cut that nonsense by simply buying the Wrights out. In this case we really would need something pretty specific (like who actually "considered" a court action, on what grounds, how far did they take it, and what stopped them in the end) and in a good source - and even then I'd tend to exercise caution rather than being too keen to rush in where angels fear to tread. When in doubt - leave it out! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FA congrats
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Albert Ball to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA you may have helped to write) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,336 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks, BencherliteTalk 11:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Teamwork Barnstar
Your skepticism and inquiring mind served as a test for the veracity of Albert Ball's biography, and were largely responsible for its development into a Featured Article. Georgejdorner (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
it will need a rename. Are you interested in identifying a tranche of WWI airplane photos from the US Library of Congress? You will need a yahoo email to get access to Flickr Commons, I think I can get you to the point in the photo stream. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure it's an Albatros B.I - the radiator over the engine is unusual - they usually had side radiators like the Albatros B.II and C.I. Don't have a Yahoo adress, suppose I could always get one. Might have a look at the photos concerned, worth a look anyway. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
viewed your gallery with no problems. I have got the odd graphic from this source before for a particular Wiki article - the great thing is that there are no copyright problems if we can cite LC. The photos in your gallery are mostly badly damaged (by deterioration of the original negative?) and some are either already on Wiki, or widely known in better versions. Not altogether sure what you want me to do. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gershwin the little hoodlum
I reverted your revert of my earlier work. This characterization is from Schwartz. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough! My original reversion wasn't just a knee-jerk thing. It read very like a typical vandal remark - I tried (without success) to work out just when it entered the article, and ended up cutting it as probable mischief. Perhaps the wording could be made a little more encyclopedic? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Oooooooooooooooooh" doesn't really explain the reversion of an edit. The statement was something that doesn't require a citation, and is consistent with the prior paragraphs of the article. I've undone your undo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.224.246.97 (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Get an account if you want to be taken seriously, please. Make comments about a particular article on the talk page for that article unless there is really something you want to say to another editor (pretty please). Sign your edits (double pretty please). Saying that "only one aircraft can be in an (unobstructed) 6 0'clock position" is a bit like saying "up is the opposite of down". Do you know the little French nursery rhyme about the three chickens? It also makes the same point. In any case quite a lot of the shooting in a dogfight was "on an angle" - why deflection shooting was so important. If you'd waited for a straight "sitter" (a pure unobstructed shot from directly behind) you'd never have got a chance to shoot at anything. Having said all that - sorry about the edit summary - it was rude and unhelpful. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Genuine question: Exactly why is an account necessary to be taken seriously? I understand an IP isn't a unique identifier of a person, but then when was that ever important in a the community edited wiki? I did make a comment on the talk page explaining I'd left a message here - precisely because I thought you were trolling :P The point of signing an edit is contained in your answer/non-answer to the first question in this paragraph. If it's for readability, well..then Wiki doesn't format different authors' edits differently... and its up to the user to indent/etc. to point out where his edit starts and the ends. In any case, I know some bot will auto-sign the edit with my IP. As regards the change on the article in question - I don't think the edit implied that people waited to fire until they got to the exact position. Rather, it serves to emphasise the difficulty of getting into an optimal position itself, and how that compounds with the number of aircraft. Haven't changed it though, because we're well into grammar pedant territory now :D
Why did I say you should get an account? Genuine answer. Wikipedia is a brave experiment. ANYONE can edit it, which is of course enormously fraught. Anyone with even a charitable expectation of humanity would expect MOST editors to be deliberately malicious and/or have an age (mental and/or chronological) of about 10 and/or be suffering from a more or less serious mental illness. And I don't think it is unfair to point out that many edits ARE in fact of this nature, producing what can only be described as graffiti ("vandalism" in wikispeak). "Serious" editors spend a great deal of time that (theoretically at least) could be spent much more productively "reverting vandalism" (scraping graffiti off the wall). The (potentially at least) useful encyclopedia is being built by a relatively small core of "serious" editors - most of whom (at least after the first week or so) get an account. Getting an account does not identify you personally - but it does mean "we" (i.e. not just "management", but more importantly the body of serious editors) "know" who you are in terms of what you do here. An editor with a proper account and a long record of well intentioned ("good faith" in wikispeak) edits that are at least most of the time more or less hit the mark (actually improve articles) will be "taken seriously". His/her edits will not be reverted lightly, fellow editors will tend to read them carefully and mull over them before hitting the "undo" button and racing on to the next item in the mornings work on their "watch list". Alternatively, of course, a registered editor with a history of graffiti can be "undone" without much thought. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aah.. but it's a 'brave' experiment, iff you don't introduce conditions which insulate it from what you depict as the "big bad world". Being prejudicial about the nature of edits (i.e. extending the principle of charity only to registered editors and accepting edits without sceptical review, while subjecting 'anonymous' IP-only edits to inquisition, and unread deletion) instantly changes the nature of the experiment. Suddenly, this 'core' of "serious editors" - in acting as gatekeepers are serving the same function as those Brittanica/World Book/Encarta etc. employees who were tasked with selecting contributors, rather than content.
Sounds like too much work to read every editor's submission, and spend the time verifying it? THAT's the point. No one was ever meant to go around policing Wikipedia, let alone policing all of it. Misinformation propagation by ill-advised omission/removal is on par with misinformation by vandalism. In other words, unbridled non-expert (based on the fit of person with article they're operating on) censors are the same as the vandals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.224.246.97 (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Every editor's submission" does need to be scrutinised SOMEHOW though. Otherwise it's not a brave experiment but a piece of silly tomfoolery. In practice a good deal of this work can be (and is) done automatically. (About half? a lot anyway) of all submissions are the purest graffiti (of the "Jack 4 Jill" variety) or plain unexplained blanking of sections of text, and are quietly filtered by bots. The rest (and remember most of this is BS too) has to be looked at by a human - and given the sheer volume involved a lot of this necessary spadework ("policing"? "gate keeping"? the point is it wouldn't be an encyclopedia at all without it!) IS based as much on knowledge about a contributor's other efforts as analysis of the content of a particular edit. If the only remarks on "your" talk page are vandalism warnings then a lot of what you submit is liable to get reverted on the spot. Getting your own account at least means that you're not saddled with the stigma of the silly nonsense of others who might have used the same IP, and once you build up a history of useful edits in a particular subject area then people are much more likely to take you seriously, and at least read and consider any edits you make before hitting the "undo" button. What do you suggest as an alternative? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fokker Scourge may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
[[Image:Interrupter gear diagram en.png|thumb|right|250px|Diagram of Fokker's "''Stangensteuerung''"
Paul, perhaps you are a well-meaning person as you indicate, so I intend this letter to be cordial. I suggest that you should not delete an entire significant fact such as my inclusion of "Gilligan's Island" in the television section of the "Robinson Crusoe" page. Clearly any English-speaking person watching television over the past forty to fifty years will back me up that the classic sitcom's end-title lyrics are the most oft-cited reference to the novel in all that time, and that the novel's influence in the development of the show is unquestionable, and the show's relevance is surely more definitive compared to the other television mentions in the television section.
I did not originate the mistaken "Lost in Space" mention, and do not take issue with its deletion since the entry was in error. Rather than delete it myself, I did just add a correcting note at the end, leading into my totally correct and justifiable "Gilligan's Island" entry.
It is a bizarre reaction for you to have followed my polite olive branch with another undoing of my insert, furthering the offense with your calling it vandalism, which is more appropriately applied to your deleting it, with all the mindfulness of just repeatedly hitting the "undo" link without any merit or explanation behind it whatsoever. My post is certainly factually correct, with perfect spelling and grammar, and relevant to the subject particularly in a paragraph dedicated to television, surely more than the cartoon series mentions whose relevance has not been put to the test of time. If you have faith in your reasoning toward my edit's inappropriateness for inclusion, how about simply allowing for the matter to be decided by another editor.
The fact that you failed to delete the incorrect "Lost in Space" paragraph until I clarified the mistake of its inclusion demonstrates your agreement that my edit at the very least served to correct what originally appeared, and therefore should not be referred to as vandalism. As for "Gilligan's Island", I'm sure fans of the series would back it up as a most relevant event in the follow-up history to "Robinson Crusoe", as almost anywhere if you simply utter the words "Like Robinson Crusoe", someone around you will automatically follow that up with the show's following lyrics "as primitive as can be." Of course a lot of phonies have been putting the sitcom down for decades, and those who take the book too seriously might follow in that unjust path, thinking their beloved classic is somehow belittled. But such behavior emanates from a delusional denial, for example the way a resident of Tasmania might resent the fact that the most famous thing about their country will always be a Looney Tunes character. Maybe not an idea one takes to heart, but one based on the fact of the matter. And isn't Wikipedia supposed to be composed of facts, regardless of personal feelings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.41.224 (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bring this up on the talk page for the article - as it is not really a personal matter between you and me, but a question of the nature of the article - and other people may well want to put in a word or two. I started a discussion topic there already - just chime in on the end of that. "Sign" everything you say on a talk page with four tilde (~) characters. Don't "revert a revert" without at least saying SOMETHING on the talk page for an article. Sorry if I'm a bit gruff at times - I do a lot of "cleaning up" of REAL vandalism, and it gets to me sometimes! Keeping on friendly terms is actually quite important - but it is NOT the main point of the exercise - building a "popular" but intellectually reasonably respectable encyclopedia is what we're here for. If someone "reverts" an edit of yours, DON'T take it personally. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"S" as a Roman Numeral
Hi! I didn't have enough room to leave this in the comment, but I could certainly live with not listing "S" as one of the primary modern in-use Roman numerals, at the top of the Roman Numerals section. It is true that it's used extensively in Pharmacy, but I don't know how widespread its use is outside of that field. I suspect many people simply haven't thought about trying to do Roman numeral fractions. (Similarly, "N" is still used for zero sometimes, but I see it even less than S.) Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"S" is actually the traditional Roman numeral for a half (6/12) - Roman fractions are treated a bit further down the article, as I said in my edit comment. The medieval use of "N" (nullus) for "nothing" - not actually a "zero" is also mentioned. You might want to add something about modern pharmaceutical use of RN in the "modern use" section - including the use of "S" and "N" - but find a reference if you can. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for being an expert vandalism fighter and a long time consistent editor. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)
Soundofmusicals is an excellent candidate for Editor of the Week. Coherent, consistent, and comprehensibile, he clearly understands that the main reason why we are here is to work together to improve the content on Wikipedia and build an intellectually, reasonably respectable, encyclopedia. He has spent over 7 years improving articles and is a bit "gruff" at times, but knows that "Keeping on friendly terms is actually quite important". Does a lot of vandalism cleanup which can be draining. With no time for the drama boards, 75% of his 13000 edits are in article space.
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
((subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box))
Thanks again for your efforts! JimCarter(talk) 06:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - the history (and the talk page and its history) are now at Synchronizer gear, and all the others are redirects to that. I don't think that leaves any double-redirects, but if there are any a bot will sort them out. Now you have found out why you shouldn't, I'm sure you won't do it again! There is a useful template ((db-move)) you should put on the target article to ask for it to be deleted to make way for a move, the format being ((db-move|page to be moved here|reason)). Regards, JohnCD (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Theory of sonics may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
