Jump to content

User talk:JackofOz/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

DYK for Ernst Märzendorfer

Updated DYK query On October 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ernst Märzendorfer, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

May I steal this?

From the discussion on fish & chips, you wrote:

(cf. a "roast" is anything that's roasted; a "bake" is anything that's baked; a "slice" is anything that's sliced; "eats" are anything that's eaten; "drinks" are anything that's drunk; I almost wonder why a salad isn't referred to as a "rip, cut, squeeze and toss".)

Can I steal that? I promise I have a good use for it! --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You're more than welcome. Leave some for me, would you, I'm starving.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Care to explain? on Ref Desk

Jack, I mean this in the nicest way: Please don't encourage a response out of BB on the Ref Page itself. I don't know what the answer is, but on the page it turns to drama. On the Ref Talk page it turns to even more drama. Unless someone puts a stop to his peanut gallery comments, the only thing I see to do is "Ignore". I say this because "Revert" seems to be another source of drama. I truly believe that BB is taunting other users (those that would like a professionally run desk). I also think he purposefully comments in ambiguous ways, so that any possible flare up is explained by him as an "innocent question" or other such nonsense. BB is capable of following the guidelines for answering questions. He recently linked to exactly what was requested. It is my belief that he chooses not to. Until he is kicked off of the desk, he will play his game. 68.244.118.70 (talk) 13:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I take all that in good part. It's just that some remarks can't be left unchallenged, as silence denotes consent. I was the (not logged in) editor who made the original point that the OP's question had nothing to do with entertainment. I guess that's irrelevant; or maybe I'm just a little sensitive to questions about tolerance/intolerance of homosexuality being regarded as something of a joke to some people. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to challenge any comment that I make. Unlike the above user, whose very first entry was to go straight to you (he's part of a harassment-only IP farm in New Jersey), I don't hide behind an IP address. If you've got a problem with anything I do, you're welcome to talk to me about it. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 22:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I did challenge you, but your silence was deafening. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
About what? Point me to what you're talking about, and I'll try to answer. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 22:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
[1]. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, that was several days ago, but let's see... An IP address asked what the Saudi people's attitude toward gays might be. I pointed out that it would be worthwhile to see what Islam has to say about it. (I could pretty well assume that Muslims in general would be anti-homosexual, but that someone could look into what Islam actually has to say about it.) Then another IP piped in with the snippy-sounding comment, "This isn't really an entertainment-related question, is it." So I gave the second IP a snippy-sounding comment right back. The original poster presumably had a reason to post it in that particular ref desk. I'm constantly being lectured about reading things in to what the OP said. That same lecture also applies to IP's making snippy comments. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 23:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
"Another IP" was me, not logged in at the time (as the above reveals). But regardless of who it was, I can't for the life of me see how "This isn't really an entertainment-related question, is it" was "snippy". Where's the relevance to entertainment of any culture's attitude to homosexuality? It was a serious comment, challenging the posting of the OP's question on the Entertainment ref desk (it would have been a fine question to ask at Humanities). It was indented at the same level as your initial response, so it was clear it was not aimed at you. But my "Care to explain?" was definitely aimed at you, because you appeared to be justifying the asking of homosexuality-related questions under the banner of "entertainment". -- JackofOz (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
And it looked snippy to me, as snippy as you all claimed my "Who says?" question was. To me, it looks like, "How dare you post this question here? What do you think you're doing?" Maybe if you had asked a more soft-pedal question, the way I was told I should? For example, you could have asked, "Is there a particular reason you posted this question in 'Entertainment'?" Maybe the OP had a reason, or maybe he just posted in the first page he saw and wasn't really paying attention. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 02:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
One other thing, which is partly what prompted my response. It occurred to me that he might have been asking about something like "drag shows", which would certainly fall into "entertainment". That ain't my cup o' tea, but it might be someone else's, including even some in Saudi Arabia. Hard telling, if the OP didn't follow up. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 02:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Point taken about the misinterpretation of the attitude behind my post. It wasn't at all what you say, but I see that it could have been read that way. However, perceived snippiness or any other form of inappropriate post, on the part of one editor, whether the perception is accurate or not, does not license any other editor to respond in kind. Otherwise we'd degenerate into the sort of slanging matches that young children get into.
Drag shows? Not my cup of tea either, I freely admit. I know you didn't mention drag shows in your reply, but to even wonder if that's what the OP was really wanting to know about suggests a stereotyping of what gay people are about. It was a very general question about the Saudi people's attitude to gay people, and there was nothing to suggest the OP was wanting to know specifically about drag shows. Maybe you could have asked them about this, and that would have kept it relevant to the Entertainment desk, at least until such time as they replied, with "Yes, that's what I meant", or "No, what I'm asking about is ...". But because there was no mention of it (until now), there was nothing in the conversation up to the point when I arrived, to suggest any possible connection to entertainment. And I'm not one who sees the words "gay" or "homosexual" and immediately thinks "drag shows, flamboyant camp queens, mincing lisping limp-wristed queers, and rampant and unending sexual activity" (I'm not saying you do, either). Hence my post.
Let's draw this to a close now. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks like it behooves us both to be clearer in our communications. :) →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 03:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Moonee Ponds

Chuckle. Good question. I had similar thoughts, but being the pedant that I am, I wondered if fictional females ranked higher than living males, then decided that was a "debate" I didn't want to become involved in! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

note

Your question about anagrams indirectly led to exposing the latest incarnation of this guy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pioneercourthouse I think that's called "serendipity". :) →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 17:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, just to clarify, that's the idiot I was talking about at the ref desk talk page. Yes, he's enough of a computer geek to figure out how to IP-hop. But he is... otherwise... an idiot. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 22:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Bill Dovey

Have you considered nominating Bill Dovey for DYK here? I've looked it over, and it definitely meets the size requirements. If you want me to nominate for you, just give me a holler. in case you're curious, I found the page listed at User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

On the GG

I know you know more about this formal stuff than I do, so... An editor at Talk:Peter Hollingworth claimed he "resigned in disgrace - in fact, to be precise, his commission was revoked by the Queen personally". I replied, "the Queen revoking his commission is no more than a formality - she can opt to accept his resignation or refuse it, and she chose to accept it and perform her contingent constitutional duty upon accepting it [...] it merely reflects the fact his term did not expire normally". Have I expressed that correctly or am I way off?

The Age's story at the time said: "Dr Hollingworth tendered his resignation on Sunday and his tenure ended at midnight last night [Wednesday night]. The Queen told the Prime Minister, John Howard, yesterday that she had accepted the resignation." [2] The ABC the previous day said: "At midnight tonight, Dr Peter Hollingworth's resignation becomes official, his commission formally revoked by the Queen." [3] Orderinchaos 11:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"in fact, to be precise, his commission was revoked by the Queen personally" - that's somewhat hyperbolic, if not inaccurate. She appoints GGs and, where necessary, revokes their commissions and accepts their resignations. She's the only one who can do the latter things. I doubt she has any real power to refuse a resignation. A GG who did not want to serve would be worse than useless if forced to stay on, but I've never heard of a vice-regal resignation being refused. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussions which you have started at the Language Reference Desk

After you commented, at 10:38, 16 October 2009, in a discussion now archived at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 October 16#Perfect anagrams of notable people's names, that you "do a lot of wondering", I became curious and searched the Language Reference Desk Archives for all discussions which you initiated. I began by searching for "User:JackofOz" and later, when my searching had been interrupted, I continued by searching for "JackofOz", and I found 717 results. I searched all those pages for discussions which you initiated. (Generally, the search results were listed according to a descending number of occurrences of the search term.) Many of those pages were repeated, so I avoided searching again on pages to which the links were colored as already visited. Listed below are discussions which you initiated, in the order in which they appeared in the search results. I suggest that you put these links on a new subpage. You might want to arrange them chronologically, as I have done with discussions which I initiated, as well as with many of the ones in which I gave answers, now listed at User:Wavelength/About languages/Wikipedia reference desk. You might wish to tag them; I have not put tags on my page (yet).

-- Wavelength (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Such a service deserves acknowledgment, and thanks. We are indeed on the same "wavelength", because more than once I've thought of creating exactly this list, but never got around to it. There are probably just as many again on Miscellaneous, Humanities and Entertainment. I've also asked a few questions at Science and Mathematics. Thanks again. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
If you do put these 77 links on a new subpage, please provide me with a link to that subpage. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Spivakovsky's Sibelius

Dear Jack,
You talkative old thing, you! Congratulations on your advanced usefulness (re the above). Recalling our little laugh a few months ago about Spivakovsky - having just acquired his Sibelius concerto (LSO/Tauno Hannikainen), I must say that this is definitely something different from Neveu, Heifetz or Wha-Chung, - especially in the bowing - is it mannered, or is it really more accurate to the score? Not sure. Well worth the hearing, anyway. Glad you seem to flourish, all the best Eebahgum (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad you enjoyed the recording. I've never heard it. But let me tell you that I have a professional client (I help people find employment) whose father was a student of Spivakovsky in Moscow. They turn up in the oddest places, even Down Under.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Melos Ensemble

Thank you for careful editing of Melos Ensemble! The odd phrase "found it congenial" was kept as in the source (should be marked as such?), and one link per composer is sufficient, or not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Found it congenial - hmm. If that's what the source wrote, that would almost be a reason not to use it. Our articles may all be based on external sources, but we're meant to be not just copy/pasting their particular forms of expression. Re links: the approach I've always taken is (maximum of) one link per subject per section. In a longish article, the same composer may well have more than one link. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again. I was just explaining "congenial" which seemed to carry the feeling of a distant time, not even trying to use it further. - So we keep honouring Beethoven, Schubert, Ireland - and the harp? With a hug --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

*Hug*

Because sometimes you're just too reasonable to be left hugless when sniped at. 80.41.80.71 (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't know who you are, but hugging strangers has never been a problem with me. Hugs have their best effect when done mutually, so consider yourself hugged right back.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 07:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ref Desk Talk

Thank you for your efforts on improving the Ref Desk. 68.244.37.17 (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Another Piet Hein Grook

I'm relying on memory here, so the original may not be exactly as written:

To make your name in learning
When other roads are barred
Take something very easy
And make it very hard.

I was a teacher when I first came across this. I have never "made my name in learning". Bielle (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Aha! Another grookophile. I'm very new to them, I must admit, but count me in. I need no help in obeying Hein's "err and err and err again".  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I discovered him him back in the middle 70s. I own (and can put my hand on) Grooks 3 and 4; I may once have had 1 and 2, but cannot locate them. Sometimes he reminds me of Ogden Nash. In the midst of long lines for vaccinations and scare journalism about swine flu, I am heartened by:
Don't be scared by every panic-scare appearing;
don't believe in every transient reprieve;
But believe it will be better than you're fearing
when you fear it will be worse than you believe.
Bielle (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Brilliant. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference Desk archiving interval

There's a discussion running on the RD talk page about decreasing the archiving and transclusion thresholds to reduce the page size, perhaps to as few as four days. I don't care one way or the other, but I'd like to make sure any consensus includes input from some long-time regulars, so I'm dropping this note on the talk pages of a few that pop to mind. (I hope no one feels this is improper canvassing.) —Steve Summit (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Britisher/Briton

I didn't mean to get at you for using Britisher, I was just curious as to why you preferred it. I've only heard Briton before, and wasn't sure if it had some other connotation down where you are. 86.142.224.71 (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. I don't usually use this term, nor do my compatriots. I was just in a teutonico-capricious mood, I guess. Cheers -- JackofOz (talk) 04:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Have a nice day!

Hello JackofOz, HappyInGeneral (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Anzac Day

A few days' absence from WP meant I initially missed your reply. Just wanted to acknowledge it, and thank you for correcting my long standing assumption that Australians wore poppies on Anzac Day too. Looks like we're on our own in overlooking Remembrance/Armistice Day. Appropriately enough, it's the 11th here. Not a poppy to be seen. Gwinva (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Gwinva. Fascinating how customs vary, isn't it. 11 November has long resonated in the Australian psyche: Ned Kelly was executed on that day; WWI (which included the Gallipoli campaign) ended on that day; and the political events of 1975 culminated on that day. The poppy was the order of the day on 11 November from 1918 onwards. Anzac Day started slightly later, and it has its own culture, such as the "traditional" playing of two-up (of which I have never played a game or even seen one played). The poppy was always accepted if someone wanted to wear one on Anzac Day, but it just hasn't been the general custom, mainly because they simply aren't sold except around Remembrance Day, so they'd have to use one they got the previous November. Wreaths are different: poppies have long featured in wreaths on both Remembrance Day and Anzac Day. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Interesting! The first NZ Anzac Day commemoration was in 1916! Official public holiday from 1921 (and still is: it's has the strictest retail/work restrictions of all). Are you sure Aust. had poppies from 1918? Most sources say they were first adopted (by Americans) in 1921. Found an interesting note about the choice of Anzac day for poppies here: the boat was too late for November 11th, so they saved them for Anzac Day. [4] Gwinva (talk) 08:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Polite Notice - Possible solution to Ondine merging

I am creating this notice to invite all interested parties to vote on the proposal to merge Undine (ballet) and Ondine (Ashton) to a new article at Ondine (ballet). You can read the discussion and add your vote to the poll at:

Look forward to seeing you there to help resolve this situation, thanks! Crazy-dancing (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Summer's Last Will and Testament (Lambert)

Hello! Your submission of Summer's Last Will and Testament (Lambert) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 19:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Summer's Last Will and Testament (Lambert)

Updated DYK query On November 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Summer's Last Will and Testament (Lambert), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Death of Frank Little

Gday JackofOz,

I happened to be throwing out some old copies of The Age recently. I always check the obituaries page for anything I might have missed, and noticed the same discrepency you asked about here. Do you think the obituary which I've now added as a reference settles the matter? Ottre 16:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ottre. I guess these cases are never truly "settled" while we have conflicting sources, but the version we have at the moment, which favours one date while acknowledging the possibility of the other, is the best way to go. It may have to wait for an authorised biography, or access to his death certificate, before we ever really know exactly when he died. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Busoni Piano Concerto

I can't believe Busoni's name has been in the middle like that since the article was created. Even with all the editing that's been done on it, no one ever seems to have noticed it. (I know I never did, and I made changes to that very sentence!) Glad you caught it! --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, Robert. I've read that intro a hundred times without noticing anything odd before. Around here, we come to expect things to be written not quite as we would have done, and that's OK, by and large, but every once in a while my editor's blue pen comes out and goes to town. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hugh Desmond

Thanks for the return of our friend Hugh. Have sent email. Gwinva (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Maffradites

When subjects of the Queen, are you referred to as "Her Maffradites"? Daddylight (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Kalkbrenner Page

Thanks for the tidy up, not sure why you removed the bolding on the Opus numbers though. I was following the way they were shown on the page for Franz Danzi. Graham1973 (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Graham. The question is not "Why did I remove the bolding of Kalkbrenner's opus numbers?". The question is "Why did whoever bold them on Danzi's page, thus creating an unfortunate precedent?". It's non-standard format to do this, and I can see no rationale for it, so I've now edited Danzi's page accordingly. Thanks for alerting me to this problem. Best -- JackofOz (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sir in member lists

I can't remember where I read the guideline that says not to, but this should satisfy. Timeshift (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Not sure about this, but I'll think over it before saying any more. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is an archive search box for your talk page. You can modify it and place it according to your preferences.


-- Wavelength (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Wavelength. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


Callas Article

Thank you for your work on the Callas article. I most definitely agree with your deletion of a lot of unnecessary linking. Shahrdad (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

All part of the service. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Signs and Portents

I notice you have upgraded your signature. Are you considering running for office? Bielle (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, and again, no. It's just a token of my continuing quest to discover who the hell I really am. My life has always proceeded in cycles of 7 years, and having recently entered my 7th year of Wiki-life, I figured I've been settling for the well-known version, the version I was never entirely happy with, for far too long, and it was now time to start to better align who I am with who I say I am. Oh, I know there's great comfort in familiarity, but it's not my role to be making others comfortable around me. In fact, I see it as part of my grand purpose to disturb the established order in some significant way - but not necessarily negatively. It mirrors a thought process about myself and my real name that's been going on out here in the real world for some years now, and will shortly come to its natural and inevitable conclusion. -- Jack of Oz (... speak!) 07:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
So, yes, it does turn out to be a sign/portent of something fairly important (and how perspicacious of you to notice). Just not anything so important as running for office. My usual approach is to run from office.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
And so, going bold-faced (if not bald-faced) into the world, in clearly separated segments, is "better aligned with who I say I am"? Interesting, if not entirely clear to this easily confused reader. Bielle (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Interesting that you call it "interesting".  :) But confusion, ah, glorious confusion! I told you I was about upsetting the established order, and I can see my plan has started to have its effect already. **(sniggers wickedly) **. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JackofOz. You have new messages at Point-set topologist's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--PST 01:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

George Frideric Handel

From about age 12 to age 18, I sang Handel pieces. Since then, I have been listening to them for an additional 40 years or more, including attending at concerts where a Handel piece was the feature of the performance at least once a year. In all that time, with all that exposure (and keeping in mind that I was an editor and proofreader for a publishing house for nearly 10 of those years), and all those sheets of music and concert programmes, I never noticed that his middle name is spelled not "ie" but just "i" in English. Until tonight, that is. Sometimes I wonder where my mind has been all those years. Bielle (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Bielle, you must be showing your age (not that there's anything wriong with that). Apparently he did spell his name "George Frideric Handel" after he became British, but that never stopped writers from coming up with every possible permutation of Georg/George + Frederick/Friedrich/Frideric/et al + Handel/Haendel/Händel. It seems to be only in the relatively recent past that consensus on how to spell his name has been reached. But you'll still continue to see older versions out there. There are similar problems with Sergei Rachmaninoff - that's the spelling the man himself used in the West, so you'd think that would be the end of the matter. But noooo. And don't get me started on Peter/Pyotr/Petr + Ilyich/Ilich/Ilitch/Ilyitch/Iljic + Tchaikovsky/Chaikovsky/Chaykovsky/Tschaikowsky/Tchaikowsky/Chaykowsky/et al. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"Everingham Rotating House - Home"

You can see "Everingham Rotating House - Home" at http://www.everinghamrotatinghouse.com.au/. The Everingham Rotating House is situated approximately 40 kilometres from Wingham, New South Wales. At this time, Wikipedia does not have an article about the Everingham Rotating House.
-- Wavelength (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ... I guess. I'm wondering why you shared this with me. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I shared it with you because you live in Australia and might be able and willing to visit it, and because you might be interested in writing an article about it. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, OK. Sorry for my obtuseness, Wavelength. It's not the sort of thing that I'd be likely to write an article about - but you never know. Thanks for the info anyway. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Lists of operas by . . .

Hi. I see you've changed the name of the Rossini list. I don't know whether you realize this but there are a series of these pages, see Category:Lists of operas by composer. The first one was List of operas by Mozart and there was a discussion about what to call it. The consensus was for Mozart without his first names (see here, so all the other titles have followed that decision. That original consensus can of course change — after proper discussion at the Opera Project — but then all the titles would have to change. Perhaps you know all this already? --Kleinzach 08:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, I didn't know any of this already. I'm surprised you think I would ever act contrary to an established consensus I was aware of. I just saw a disconnect between "List of works by Gioachino Rossini" and "List of operas by Rossini", and boldy fixed it. Please feel free to put it back the way it was. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
OK. Now fixed - but please note that these lists are almost always part of a series. They are not named at random. Thanks. --Kleinzach 11:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you'd already made that point, Kleinzach; no need to keep on making it. However, perusing the category, I see some anomalies:
Well, you understand the principle involved. Arguably Michael Haydn is more important than Siegfried Wagner. more performed anyway. There are four Hillers (see Grove for details). --Kleinzach 02:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Not sure I got my point across. Why is it necessary to spell out Joseph Haydn (@ List of operas by Joseph Haydn), when it isn't necessary to spell out Richard Wagner or Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart or Gioachino Rossini? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Chopin

Something more important, I see you changed a Chopin article. I'm wondering if you have time to check the others to see if they conform to your system? I've done a Chopin 'book', see Wikipedia:Books/Frédéric Chopin, which list the articles, hopefully including all the compositions. Thanks. --Kleinzach 02:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. "Changed a Chopin article" - I've made a number of changes to Chopin-related articles of recent days. Can you be clearer about your question? Not sure what "my system" is a reference to. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
You moved La Valse de L'Adieu to Waltz in A-flat major, Op. 69, No. 1 (Chopin), see here. This made me wonder whether the other titles are correct in your view. (I note you give the key, unlike most of the other Chopin articles.) Thanks. --Kleinzach 05:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
The only Chopin waltz articles that don't have the key signature in the title are the Minute Waltz and the Grand valse brillante, Op. 18. These titles have stuck, so I guess it's fair enough to use them. Although, I can't see anything wrong with Grande valse brillante in E flat major (Chopin), since Chopin also titled his 3 waltzes, Op. 34 "Grandes valses brillantes". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
This affects all the Chopin pieces, not just the waltzes. Is there a convenient rule somewhere that we can follow? Or do we follow the first published title? --Kleinzach 07:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC) P.S. The new Classical music project guidelines page is located here. Please let me know if you see anything that needs attention. --Kleinzach 00:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, now we're getting somewhere. I've raised a few issues there. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
This should be productive. I think people will be receptive to your ideas, and also follow any guidelines that we can create. --Kleinzach 04:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Your corrections to Josef Hofmann wiki page

I noticed that in the changes you made to the "Technique and Style" section, you have let a sentence on Rachmaninoff form a paragraph by itself (see the penultimate sentence in that section). Please merge it with the previous paragraph since, on its own, it has a "peacock value" and, also, unnecessarily underscores the significance of Rachmaninoff --- since Godowsky, Lhevinne, Busoni etc. had formidable techniques as well, someone may ask "Why refer to Rach alone on Hofmann? What were the views of these other legends on Hofmann's techniques?".

Also, Gregor Benko advanced me to change "Jozef" to "Josef" all through since, according to him, Hofmann always wrote his name as "Josef".

Thanks very much for your edits, of course! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alextierno98 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.
You don't need me to return a sentence to a paragraph. Just do it yourself if it concerns you.
I've already initiated the process to change it from Józef to Josef Hofmann. See Talk:Józef Hofmann#Proposed name change. In the meantime, we cannot have an article titled Józef but call the subject Josef throughout the text. Consistency is paramount otherwise our credibility goes out the window. When the article is moved, then we can change most references of Józef to Josef, not before. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Melbourne - seat of government

Not sure you are right on that point. It was where the Heads of Public Service Departments were, I believe, as well as the Parliament. I'm too busy to check it however. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to quote s.125 of the Constitution of Australia:
  • 125. The seat of Government of the Commonwealth shall be determined by the Parliament, and shall be within territory which shall have been granted to or acquired by the Commonwealth, and shall be vested in and belong to the Commonwealth, and shall be in the State of New South Wales, and be distant not less than one hundred miles from Sydney.
  • Such territory shall contain an area of not less than one hundred square miles, and such portion thereof as shall consist of Crown lands shall be granted to the Commonwealth without any payment therefor. The Parliament shall sit at Melbourne until it meet at the seat of Government. [5]
(my highlighting). So, Melbourne and the "seat of government" were always different places. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it is more of a case of the 'de facto' seat of government returning to 'de jure' seat of government, which was only a good sheep run when the constitution was written. The whole government was in Melbourne, not just the parliamment. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Your logic's a bit off there. A seat of government is a place. Maybe you meant to say the government moved from the de facto seat of government to the de jure seat of government. I obviously see what you're getting at; indeed, some of the head offices of public service departments stayed in Melbourne till Whitlam's time (1972-75), or later. But Melbourne ceased having its "temporary" or "de facto" label in 1927, the moment the Parliament House was opened in Canberra. So the only relevant thing is where the Parliament sat. Melbourne could be referred to as "the temporary seat of government" prior to 1927, as long as it's understood this is common parlance and not the use of the term as intended in the Constitution. i.e. the difference between the Seat of Government and the seat of government (except the Constitution did not capitalise the term). Just how we separate these, I'm not sure. Until such a solution presents itself, I'm wary of using the term in such a way, because it could so easily be misinterpreted. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Casablanca

Another Jack made me say "onkel". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Russian Academy of Theatre Arts

Thank you so much for helping with translation on this article. My English is terrible! I know that. But I did my best. I hope you can handle it! Thanks again! Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!Chegemly (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of unusual personal names

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of unusual personal names. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual personal names (5th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Joyeux Noël

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

AWB and Words to avoid

There is a discussion at the Village Pump regarding using AWB to semi-automatically remove WP:Words to avoid. You got this notice because you have participated in a discussion regarding this in the recent past. Your input is welcomed. Gigs (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky and the Belyayev circle

Jack, thanks very much for the compliment and comments about this article. I've rewritten the sentence you pointed out to make clear it was Rachmaninoff's sister who introduced Rachmaninhoff to Tchaikovsky's songs, and that it was Tchaikovsky's relatinship with Taneyev that was another contributing influence. Thanks again for looking things over. Jonyungk (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

List of Companions of the Order of Australia

  • Firstly, Season's Greetings! I hope you're having a break, and are enjoying it as much as I'm enjoying mine!
  • Second, I like your new signature. Very stylish.
  • Getting to the point ...

We don't seem to be making a lot of progress with the reduction in the number of red links on List of Companions of the Order of Australia. However, I don't have any useful ideas on what to do about it, (other than to go pour myself another glass of wine and ignore the "problem").
Your thoughts?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Happy New Year!

Thanks, Pdfpdf. Yuletide and other relevant felicitations to you, too.
Actually, some of these people are quite obscure, because ACs (or even knighthoods and peerages) are not necessarily any guarantee of celebrity. They get their name in the paper on the day of the award, in some cases for the only time in their lives. Notability is probably satisfied, however, since there has to be some official record of the deeds for which they're being honoured.
Some of the names have been on my personal To Do List for ages, but that list turns out to be just as much a List of Things NOT To Do as anything else. New Years Resolution: Making a list of things I have to do means I actually have to do them ... eventually.  :)
Ignoring the problem - that might work. Come back in 20 years and see if there are still any red links. Some editors loathe red links, and would have removed them from "our" list by now. I have no issue with them; they're a reminder that something remains undone. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

2010

We drank the toast, kissed everyone in the room, took a photo or two and them rounded up the gang to carry the wheelchair over the ice, down the hill and up to the van. And now we are home, safe, and thinking of hot-water bottles and a long lie-in come morning. I suspect you are about to have your New Year's Day dinner in the heat of a summer's late afternoon. May this year, and all those that follow, be full of joy. Bielle (talk) 06:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Bielle. I've been in denial about this, preferring to believe nothing has changed. But I've got to return to work this morning (damn!) after an 11-day break (oh, bliss!), so I guess 2010 really has arrived after all. I just can't get enthusiastic about it for myself, but I hope it's a good year for you. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sergei Rachmaninoff

Could you please pinpoint where it says about his US citizenship and what the source is (Re Talk:Sergei Rachmaninoff#"was a Russian").Axxxion (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't say it anymore, because Life of Sergei Rachmaninoff has been moved to Youth of Sergei Rachmaninoff, and all but the youth-related material has been excised. But that material has not (or not yet) been merged back into the main article Sergei Rachmaninoff. What a schemozzle!
But if you go back to an earlier version, it's there as large as life: see [6], for example, which states "Rachmaninoff and his wife became American citizens on 1 February 1943". It's not cited, unfortunately. For that, please look back at Talk:Sergei Rachmaninoff/Archive 1#US Citizenship, where the information was provided on 10 April 2006, from his wife's recollections. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Merger of four Ballades

At Talk:Ballade No. 4 (Chopin) there was some discussion about merging the pages for the four Ballades. You expressed some interest or support in this. I have decided to get started on this at User:Insorak/Ballades, so feel free to come in and edit/tweak things. I’m a relatively new editor here, so I’m still not certain how everything works, and a little guidance would be nice, even welcome. :) Enjoy your evening, Insorak ♫ talk 00:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm now fairly far on the Ballades merger, and have incorporated a lot of (unreferenced, but looking!) new information. Your feedback would be welcome! Thank you! Insorak ♫ talk 05:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Good job, Insorak. I did have a look through the other day, found very little I would change, and got distracted. I've now made a few very minor tweaks. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Mass Deletions

A new editor is deleting mass amounts of material (all Oxfordian) from the Authorship page. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks. ----

  • User: Smatprt is disrespectfully misrepresenting my attempt to keep the Shakespeare authorship article balanced. It has too many Oxfordian citations and far from being disruptive I have suggested neutral citations. I get the feeling that he believes that he is the only one who is allowed to edit this article. I notice that because he is on the edge of the 3R rule he is trying to use someone else to revert it. WellStanley (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Mikhail Matveyevich Sokolovsky

There was Mikhail (aka Mykhaylo) Sokolovsky the football player (Mikhail Sokolovsky (footballer)) who is somewhat notable (he won a few things). It's not as if Mikhail Sokolovsky the composer's page gets all that many views (http://stats.grok.se/en/200912/Mikhail%20Sokolovsky) so I think both are equally notable. 03:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As you say, he's hardly that well known, so nobody is going to know that the the Mikhail Sokolovsky with the patronymic Matveyevich was the composer - as distinct from the football player or the frog sexer - unless we tell them. What we need is Mikhail Sokolovsky (composer). I've made the move. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark Birnbaum

Greetings. I have nominated the above article for deletion. I welcome your input on the articles for deletion page.THD3 (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Prime Ministers of Australia

You reverted the new formatting for the table on this page. In my eagerness to implement my format, I had not discussed it. I apologise for this; I have now posted an entry on the talk page. Nonetheless, I do feel that my format is an improvement, as I find the current table convoluted (it is difficult to see a PM's term of office at a glance, as the two relevent dates are hidden in a profusion of columns). My table seems to me to be as informative as the current version, and more legible, so I would be most grateful to understand the reasons for your dislike of it. I am a regular table and chart editor, and your objections would be most useful to me for future edits to other pages. BartBassist (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Userpage

I noticed you try to separate the poem and the userboxes using line-breaks (<br>), which doesn't work (as least in Firefox). Here's a bit of a cheat using tables you can use that's best suited for the Monobook skin, and should work in all browsers: 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr><td bgcolor="#f8fcff">
{{User Wikipedian For|year=2003|month=12|day=8}}
{{Wikipedia:RD regulars/box}}
{{User piano-3}}
{{User Australian}}
{{Template:User Proud Celtic}}
</td></tr></table>
{{Babel-2|en|ru-1}}

All I've done is add lines 1 and 7 (the two that start with a green <). I also took the time to browse through your userspace and I have to say I find it brilliant, especially the Insults page. —what a crazy random happenstance 09:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks. I've tweaked my user page accordingly. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

DrKiernan

Upon browsing the page's history I realised DrKiernan used administrator rollback to revert your revert of his forgery of my signature. The admin rollback feature is to be used solely for "vandalism and nonsense", and misuse is grounds for revocation of the ability to use the tool. His use of the admin rollback indicated that in reverting your edit, he was acting in his capacity as an administrator, and moreover that he considered your edits vandalism or nonsense. Though I didn't originally want this to escalate, as I have repeatedly indicated, DrKiernan's ongoing bizarre behaviour, and now misuse of admin privilege, suggests that our trust in him as an administrator is misplaced. Would you be adverse to requesting comments on his conduct over at WP:RfC? Though an RfC doesn't lead to any sanctions, a condemnation of his edits over at RfC may compel him to act with more restraint in the future, or perhaps resign as administrator. Since you're one of two users who attempted to discuss the incident on his talk page (the other being User:Jza84), your approval would be required for this. PS: The existence of User talk:DrKiernan/Note to closing admin also worries me. —what a crazy random happenstance 05:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, it's probably more trouble than its worth. Unless DrKiernan tops his eccentricity yet again with an edit to blow our collective socks off, there most likely isn't a need to escalate this further. I have to say I wasn't expecting this much drama when I first raised the notion of moving the Queen. —what a crazy random happenstance 07:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I wasn't wanting to initiate any sort of formal action or procedure or process. I just wanted to draw attention to some very odd behaviour, in the hope that it might stop. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Josef Tal

Dear JackofOz, Indeed true - WP term for Violoncello is Cello. The problem is that the term " Violoncello" is an integral part of the work's name. I do not see eligibility of such a change - a work's name is part of its copyright. Even if a work's title contains a spelling mistake (which is absolutely not the case here), nobody is entitled to correct it. The "Details" mentioned are usually part of the work's title. Etan J. Tal 19:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etan J. Tal (talk • contribs)

Hi Etan. Yes, I understand the point you're making, and titles have a degree of sacrosanctity. But does that mean we should in perpetuity only ever refer to Elgar's or Dvořák's Cello Concertos as "Concerto for Violoncello and Orchestra"? Or only ever refer to Beethoven's piano concertos as "Concerto for Pianoforte and Orchestra"? Certainly not.
The List of compositions by Josef Tal does not suggest to me that Josef Tal wrote a work called In Memoriam of a Dear Friend for Violoncello, or, indeed, even In Memoriam of a Dear Friend for Cello. No, it's just In Memoriam of a Dear Friend. It happens to have been written for an instrument that, except in the most over-formal of contexts, is always known as a cello; but the words "cello" or "violoncello" are not part of the name of the work.
Btw, do you really expect people in this day and age to talk about the "Prelude for chamber orchestra, flute and fagott"? The word bassoon is the English version of “fagott”. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I see your point and I accept. Thanks! Etan J. Tal 21:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etan J. Tal (talk • contribs)

Merger of Chopin Etudes

Your input would be appreciated here. I'm thinking of doing with them what I did with the ballades. Thanks! Insorak ♫ talk 22:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello JackofOz! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 42 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

  1. Leslie Howard (musician) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  2. Roy Douglas - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  3. Elsie Morison - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Bizet

I have Opera Grove here. Hugh Macdonald's article as cited in the WP article has him as Bizet, Georges (Alexandre César Léopold) - i.e. the other names were his but he himself only used Georges (see Louis Antoine Jullien!). There's nothing there about his baptism - maybe Winton Dean's book goes into this but I don't have easy access to it. Best. --GuillaumeTell 18:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC) (P.S. I'll be seeing Prokofiev's original version of War and Peace, which fell foul of the authorities and was never performed, next week - but your ancester won't be in it as the Council at Fili scene was added later.)

Well, Macdonald rather than Sadie, and you obviously know more about Bizet than I do, so perhaps you could rephrase my alteration to the article to dispose of the "but" (and preferably find a suitable reliable printed source and provide a ref for the legal vs baptismal stuff). My Viking Opera Guide, by the way, has him as Georges Bizet in the article header, but underneath gives his name as Alexandre-César-Léopold [Georges] Bizet, which seems to back up what you say without giving details of what this means! My Oxford Dictionary of Opera and my old Kobbé just say Georges. --GuillaumeTell 15:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ought not

In the Ref Desk thread on this topic, you say that "ought not" without a "to" following has a "long history". Where might I find such a history? I am, I confess, constantly finding that what I have always thought was plain ignorance in language use is now considered just another local variation. Is this an Australian idiom? I don't recall ever having heard it until the IP brought it up on the Ref Desk. And what about "couple" losing its "of"? It seems to be a new Amercanism: "a couple days" for example, when I would have expected "a couple of days". Oh yes, any packages from the Great White North yet? Bielle (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

  • First and most important things first. No, no packages yet. I check my mailbox every day, but nothing from northern climes. I would certainly have said something if it had arrived - if only "Oh, is that all!"  :) :)
  • I googled "ought not", and on the very first page were these hits:
  • Twitter : You ought not be following everyone
  • ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objective
  • Sarah Stephens: Elections in Honduras Ought Not Be Blessed by U.S. ...
On page 2:
  • Equity ought not restrict university quality
  • Madonna: The Queen ought not be Poor
  • Ought Not Be Repeated.
These were interspersed with examples of "ought not to ...". So, it seems both forms are widespread. These hits don't say anything about the longevity of either version, they just demonstrate they're alive and well now. But I've been hearing both versions all my life, on and off. Probably in movies and books more than real life. Neither version is particularly Australian (we'd be much more likely to say "shouldn't"), and I personally don't use either very often - hardly ever, in fact, because they have a slightly olde-worlde feeling about them, and I have enough reminders in my bathroom mirror of oldness without the need to have more examples around me. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, Jack. I didn't mean to put you to a Google search on my behalf. I thought perhaps you had something scholarly. I know that there are likely examples of everything on the Internet, only some of which are typos -and how easily that "to" might be lost! There is a lot of ignorance out there (and in WP), too. I can accept that there may be many people who use a particular construct ("I seed it" is rampant out where I now live, as is "youse guys", both abominations to my ears.) without accepting that it is good English. It is, in fact, a "dialectic signifier" in my mind of a certain type of ill-educated speaker of the language, and useful in that way. Both "ought not to" and "shouldn't" would be considered very formal in my country setting; "shooden otter" is what you would usually hear. Grumbling again, and avoiding the mirror, Bielle (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Classical music/Style guidelines/Generic name titles

Hi. I'm wondering if drafting the CM guideline for 'generic name' articles might be proving a tough assignment? I originally thought this would be right up your street, especially as your User:JackofOz/Musical styles was so well laid out, but if it's not then please say so, and we can try to find someone else qualified to have a go. (I don't want to do it myself because I don't have access to the Grove (except the opera volumes) etc.)

As you may have seen, I've now done the 'true names' section, see WP:CAPM. Best. --Kleinzach 05:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Kleinzach. I've done some work on this - see User:JackofOz/Music style issues. As you can see, it's currently a mixture of statements and questions, reflecting the chaotic/fragmented state of my mind and life at the moment. It's a start, and I'm sure it has some good things, but it needs more work before it can go anywhere. Appreciate your feedback as to whether I'm remotely in the ballpark on this. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Good, there is a lot to build on there. However I think there are three separate questions we need to address - general rules (of the kind we discussed before), and a style for the lead, and a style for article titles. (We did this before for opera, although this is obviously much simpler, when we decided to use short names for article titles, e.g. Così fan tutte, and full names for the lead, e.g. Così fan tutte, ossia La scuola degli amanti.) How do you feel about this approach? --Kleinzach 13:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It's over a week since I replied above. Are you still interested in this, or would you like to hand it over to someone else? Best. --Kleinzach 01:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Kleinzach. I am definitely interested in participating. Maybe not as the lead writer, though. Lately I find myself fragmented in various ways, and it's unwise to rely on me for much. Too many things I'm involved in, far too little time. Probably would have been better to gracefully decline your proposal at the outset, rather than let my ego take the running. Best. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Prime Minister of Canada

I wish my country would use the title Governor for our provinces & territories. Abolish the 'royal' Lieutenant Governor offices & re-name the 'deputy premiers' Lieutenant Governors. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Need your help

As I can see you edited articles on Russian composers and musicologists. I would like to use a picture of Mykola Vilinsky from ru.Wiki, please see - [7] and don't know what kind of en.Wiki license I need. Could you please help me? Thank you! Semimartingale (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Subjunctive

Yeah, I've always found the wording a bit lacking in that box...but I really don't care much about userboxes, so I've never found it important enough to do anything about changing it :-) Nyttend (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's recitativ, Jim, but not as we know it.

Yo, wassup (as I am of the understanding that The Youth of Today say) J-oz? Have you watch-listed Genesis Suite? Interesting things are afoot there.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Vladimir Davydov

I recently started a stub on Tchaikovsky's nephew Vladimir Davydov, but was able to give just a bare amount of information. Thought you might be interested in filling it out a little more, especially since you've read Poznansky's Tchaikovsky: The Quest for the Inner Man. Thanks very much for your help. Jonyungk (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Piano Concerto (Tan Dun)

I made Piano Concerto (Tan Dun)! It was premiered in 2008. I think is better than Scherzo in D minor (Rachmaninoff), but I beg you to check this too! Thank you so much. I've been offline for four months and I needed to create a little something, you understand me, don't you? OboeCrack (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion

Hi. I've started a discussion here. (Actually, it's a restart of a prior discussion that went cold; you can just scroll directly down to my most recent post in that section if you want.) Can you offer your thoughts? I think it's very important. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Cosgrove

Hi Jack!
Normally I would have reverted it, but because it was you who put it there, I thought I'd ask first.
Regarding this edit, CNZM is a "foreign" award, and hence is not an "authorised/valid/allowable/whatever" post nominal for Australian citizens. So I'm assuming you know something I don't. So, enlighten me please!
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I remembered seeing Mike Rann with a CNZM after his name, so I blithely assumed that it would also apply to Cosgrove, but I now see that Rann's article has been amended. I'll fix my error.
Yes. (Note that Rann was English born, migrated to NZ, and then to Oz. However, no one has provided any evidence of his citizenship(s) ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Btw, I checked out the rules on It's an Honour and I discovered the following for future reference:
  • "Post-nominals within the Order of St John are not recognised as notified in the Governor-General’s media release of 14 August 1982."
That means we can go ahead and get rid of all those horrible K.St.J.'s etc that some editors seem hell-bent on including.
Yes. I noticed it on Australian Honours Order of Precedence a while back, and have been removing them ever since - however, I must admit I haven't come across noticed any for a quite a while. Presumably you have? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


I now see you've reverted it anyway, even though you said you'd wait for my response. Ah, well ... -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. Yeah. My apologies. (Well, nobody's perfect ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Roy Douglas

Hi Jack. If you get time could you comment on the possible close paraphrasing issue I tagged this article for? I have explained my reasoning on the article's talkpage. Thanks. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I am not sure if your first edit to create the article was ripped from a copyright source or if they pinched the material you provided. --Jubilee♫clipman 02:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Infobox for orchestra

Hi Jack, I started a discussion about images (logos) in infoboxes for orchestras at the template talk page. Has this been hashed about before by the classical music project? Is there already some sort of policy? Please take a look, if you have the time. I would appreciate hearing your views on the subject. Thanks! --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Genesis Suite categories

I uploaded seven documents as original source documentation. They showed in the commons when I uploaded them and listed Category:Genesis Suite. You have added a category to the Genesis Suite, and now the documents do not show in the commons. It is important that they be in Genesis Suite commons. If you can help make this happen, it would be appreciated. Niel Shell (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC) grandson and archivist Nathaniel Shilkret

Hi. Seems to me there were 3 documents available before I made my edit, and there are still 3 documents available. Don't know anything about 7 documents. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I uploaded 10 documents, all personal letters, that have Category:Nat Shilkret and Category:Genesis Suite written for them. They appear in the Nat Shilkret commons, and sometimes, but not always and not recently, in the Genesis Suite commons. I don't know how to assure that they do appear in the Genesis Suite commons. If you have any ideas how to fix this, again, I express my appreciation. If my query to you is misdirected, sorry to have troubled you. Niel Shell (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Niel

thank you

Thank you for linking to the compositions used by Jerome Robbins in The Concert and In the Night ! — Robert Greer (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ref. Desk

At my suggestion Akrabbi has reworded a post[8] to which you had commented. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Salieri tweaks - Many Thanks

Dear Jack of Oz,

Thank you so much for the tweaks to my work on Mr. Salieri, please continue to stop by and tidy up! It often takes me many drafts on the fly before I'm pleased with my work, and I was working around some of the material that was there - I didn't want to be rude and completely re-write everything. Great little changes, if you spot anything, please fix it. As I noted in my comments - I will keep working on the page til it seems much improved or someone more knowledgable comes along and makes it as it should be. Again many thanks, Eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.218.217 (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom GA review

A review to see if Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria has started, and has been put on hold. Suggestions for improvement are at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/GA2, and are mainly to do with coverage and neutrality, and building the lead section. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is one of our most high profile and popular articles, attracting an average of over 11,000 readers every day. You have made more than 40 edits to the article, and so you might be interested in helping to make the improvements needed to get it listed as a Good Article. SilkTork *YES! 12:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Fowler and The Curate's Egg

Can a fowler be a curate's egg? A fowler might produce one, I suppose, but . . . And as for this Fowler, surely there was a time when it was considered to be excellent in all its parts. (It is still my guide. I once asked Angr for a modern equivalent, and he said there was no such thing. How sad!) Bielle (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I still use it. But I have to say some of its advice is distinctly unhelpful; such as Whoever. If you can extract any more light from it than I could, my hearty congratulations, Bielle. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

John Barbirolli

Hello, JackofOz! I see you've made several recent amendments – all ad rem and gratefully noted – to this article. Any comments you felt moved to add to the peer review page would be most welcome, if you have the time and the inclination. – Tim riley (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Prescriptivism

Jack, I wasn't trying to tie you down with labels, just pointing out that from a descriptive point of view, Americans turn nouns into verbs to a very high degree, constantly. It may not be a good thing but it's kind of like parents fighting rock'n'roll in the '60s--you can't fight it, for better or worse (I mean you can, but no matter how many limits you put up, people are still going to do it). Hope that clears things up. No hard feelings?--Dpr (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Never were any, my friend. There will always be tsunamis, but I'll still be fighting them on the beaches, demanding they cease in their tracks and return to whence they came, or dissipate into the ether. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. Saint Quijote is certainly worthy of veneration at times. In any case, on today's Humanities Desk, I came across a wild nominalization in the legal context. I expect the writer is not a native English speaker (not sure)...they asked, "f someone has passed their level 3 diploma in law (or under the new terms is an Associate of Ilex) what duties can they carry out in the work place? . . . Can they fee earn?" (emphasis added). Normally only the "ordinary" verb (to earn a fee) or personal noun (a fee-earner) is used in British or American legal contexts...--Dpr (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
See Word formation process and scroll down to "Back-formation". (The words liaise, liaison, scavenge, and scavenger are misspelled.)
-- Wavelength (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Ain't they fun? Helicopt, grunge, intuit, smarm are also good examples. Moreover, you may know about backronyms. I do fear we've wondered a bit afield. But either way, there's quite a tide for Jack to attept to hold back! :) --Dpr (talk) 02:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
There's the syntax "wikitable" we use at the head of tables, and I wonder how long before some bright spark talks of taking some data and "wikitating" it.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind a couple chatty questions unrelated to the above. I'm a culture buff, you see (as well as a word buff like yourself). In any case, I noted two things I wanted to mention first--you seem to like Domenico Scarlatti, whom I recently discovered...he is fantastic. Also, your "schnitzel" syndrome--all too true! (Somewhat related to the above discussion--esp. in the US.) Anyway, I was curious to ask whether a lot of Australians studied Russian during the Cold War--at least sizably more than today? It's a bit similar in the US. Second question is, do you put any credence at all to the theory that American and Australian culture are similar, and if, do you think the similar external factors are responsible: large landmass, physically isolated from other, high immigrant population combined with a long tradition of living in "the wild" (Outback and western frontier, respectively)? Obviously there are dissimilarities, but just curious as to your thoughts...:) Not important, however. Thanks! --Dpr (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Your Australicity

(That sounds almost like a style!) You write that your Australicity amounts to 82.2062; I suppose you mean 82.2062 ppb, since there wouldn't be enough room in the whole southern hemisphere for so many Australias! But still, how do you get that value? The latest census our article cites has 22,165,740, which translates to 45.11466795 ppb per average Australian. I'm not saying you're an average Australian, though. — Sebastian 07:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not. In sooo many ways, I'm not, Sebastian. That's not to say I'm better or worse than the average; just - not average.
My maths have failed me. Naughty maths, off to bed without your supper. 45-odd ppb it is. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


List of couples with British titles in their own right

Hi. I have been advised that you are the man to speak to. Could you review the List of couples with British titles in their own right, which I have added to significantly (but did not create) to see if it's OK. Feel free to make whatever changes you deem necessary. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Also - could you explain (for a layman) roughly the difference between a Knight Bachelor and a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire (KBE)? Thanks again. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"The man to speak to" - I don't know where that comes from, but I'll certainly run my eye over it.

There are various orders of knighthood - Order of the British Empire, Order of St Michael and St George. Order of the Garter, Order of the Thistle, Order of the Bath, Royal Victorian Order, and a few others. A knighthood in any of these orders comes with the prenominal "Sir" or "Dame", and the postnominal letters KBE/DBE/GBE, KCMG/DCMG/GCMG, KG/LG, KT/LT, KCB/DCB, KCVO/DCVO/GCVO ... There are also lower awards within these orders - Companion, Member, Officer etc. - which come with postnominal letters but no prenominal title.

A Knight Bachelor is not part of any order. It's just a knighthood. The recipient still gets called "Sir", but there are no postnominal letters. It applies to men only. It has no effect on any existing or future postnominals deriving from other awards.

Confusion often arises when a person has a non-knighthood award in an order of chivalry and then gets a Knight Bachelor - or vice versa.

  • Paul McCartney became Paul McCartney MBE (Member of the Order of the British Empire). Then he was made a Knight Bachelor, so he's Sir Paul McCartney MBE. He doesn't lose his postnominal MBE, because it is separate from his knighthoood.
  • John Smith becomes Sir John Smith (knight bachelor). Then he's appointed MBE (Member of the Order of the British Empire), so he's now Sir John Smith MBE.
  • James Brown is appointed MBE: James Brown MBE. Then he's appointed a Knight Commander within the same order, the Order of the British Empire. So he's now Sir James Brown KBE. The postnominal KBE subsumes the earlier MBE from within the same order (just like a Captain who's promoted to General is now known as General, not Captain General). But it would not have subsumed an award from a different order, or an unrelated postnominal such as MP, QC.


Right. I understand. But what I don't understand is when the honours are announced, it seems that Knights Bachelor are the first mentioned and are set up and line up as the male equivalent of the DBE. KBEs do not appear to generally be awarded anymore, except maybe in special occasions.
Also what do you think of the List of couples with British titles in their own right? Anything wrong that needs to be corrected. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I did say I'd run my eye over it. Give me a chance, man.
KBEs are certainly still awarded. Looking at any one honours list might not give you a representative sample of the honours that are still handed out these days. The order of awards in the honours list has its own history; it has no bearing on the precedence of one award over another in other contexts. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if this is quite germane to your discussion but isn't Bill Gates a KBE but not allowed to call himself "Sir Bill"? He is only "Bill Gates, KBE". Possibly the distinction you are discussing is also the usage of titles for Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth subjects. Bob Geldof, for example is technically "Robert Frederick Zenon "Bob" Geldof, KBE" but not "Sir Bob", desite popular usage... Sorry if that was irrelevent! --Jubilee♫clipman 21:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
We're talking about awards given by the British government/monarch. Full awards apply only to citizens of Commonwealth realms; other people are given honorary awards. Honorary awards come with an entitlement to whatever postnominal letters apply, but no prenominal title "Sir".
Then there are people who are dual citizens of a Commonwealth realm and some other country that is not a Commonwealth realm. They are given full awards and, as far as the British government is concerned, they are fully entitled to call themselves "Sir" (in the case of a knighthood). But the other country might not be so happy about it. Alfred Hitchcock was a dual citizen of the UK and the USA; he was knighted and was thus Sir Alfred Hitchcock, but he didn't use "Sir" in the US. He's a bad case because he died soon after getting his knighthood. Sir Anthony Hopkins is a better example.
But Bill Gates, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr, Bob Geldof and a whole host of other people are NOT allowed to call themselves "Sir" - in any country - because the honorary award they were given does NOT come with any such entitlement to begin with.
Bob Geldof is a very odd case; he, alone of all the hundreds of honorary knights out there, is regularly mis-named "Sir Bob"; often this is done by breathless music journos who wouldn't know their arse from their armpit about such matters; but what intrigues me is that often it's done by the BBC, the ABC and other august institutions that DO know about such things - or used to, back in the day. It seems that it's almost become somehow inadequate to just call him "Bob Geldof", and people feel the need to tack on "Sir", without any authority whatsoever except "that's what other people are calling him". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
A-ha! That explains "Sir" Bob. Thanks. Sorry: you have another conversation to attend to now. --Jubilee♫clipman 22:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry I wasn't meaning to rush you. Is a KBE higher than a KB? If so, why would Terry Wogan get a KBE and Laurence Olivier a KB? Thanks for the insights. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Is it a brilliant idea linking you hotmail account directly to your WP account-name? Just wondered... --Jubilee♫clipman 22:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
See Order of precedence in England and Wales#Knights for the order of precedence of knighthoods. These normally have application when people have been given more than one knighthood and it's important to get the postnominals in the correct order; which isn't necessarily the order in which they were given - hardly ever, in fact. Each country now sets its own order of precedence, for example see Australian Honours Order of Precedence, which goes beyond knighthoods and gets into all manner of other postnominals. But the order of precedence for a particular award differs from country to country in some cases – see Royal Victorian Order#Precedence in each realm.
By KB do you mean "Knight Bachelor"? Yes, any knighthood within an order of knighthood is higher than a Knight Bachelor. Why did Larry Olivier only get a Knight Bachelor? Search me; I'd have to check but I suspect it was considered the appropriate level of knighthood for such a profession. He later got a life peerage, which outranks Wogan. There is a sort of code with some knighthoods - KCMGs tend to be given to senior public servants etc; KBEs to diplomats; GCMGs to former Prime Ministers and so on. These are by no means hard and fast rules. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-Commonwealth countries

Ronald Reagan, Rudy Giuliani, Bob Geldof, Steven Spielberg, Niall Fitzgerald, Bono, William Trevor, Ann Murray (Irish soprano, not Canadian singer), etc. hold/held honorary knighthoods (re above conversation); they can use post-nomials in correspondence, i.e. Steven Spielberg, K.B.E., but cannot, as noted above, call themselves Sir or Dame. Further, P.G. Wodehouse, Alfred Hitchcock and Anthony Hopkins were all born as British subjects and apparently were considered British subjects so their knighthoods were substantive. Gracie Fields apparently lost her British nationality during WWII, due apparently to her marriage to a native of Italy, with whom Britain was at war, but regained it before her death; she was knighted as DBE a year or less before her own death. This may explain why Wodehouse, Fields and Hitchcock were knighted so late in life, no? Marjorie Scardino was a United States citizen who apparently took out British nationality as her damehood is substantive. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm .... and was there a question in all that? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JackofOz/Archive_13&oldid=1190245434"