Jump to content

User talk:JackofOz/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 25

Messa da Requiem

You are right, Messa da Requiem is a generic title. But so is Mass in B minor, Christmas Oratorio, St Matthew Passion, to name just a few. I think that in the same line of leading easily to the most important one without a qualifier, Messa da Requiem would be Verdi. (I just translated a singer to German, where St Matthew Passion is Matthäus-Passion (J. S. Bach), sigh ... - but at least Messiah is simple in German.) - You are also right that there should have been a discussion before moving, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I just googled "messa di requiem", and the first 3 hits were Mozart, Pizzetti and Puccini. Verid's work is sometimes called "Messa di Requiem", but mostly simply "Verdi's Requiem" or "the Verdi Requiem". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that brilliant comment, "Verdi Requiem", to "Bach cantata"! You should google "Messa da Requiem", or was "di" a typo? Have a good Sunday (just started here)! For me, dress rehearsal for Haydn's Creation, for the annual concert tomorrow, German National Holiday (a jour fixe), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank You!

Hi Jack,

I just wanted to say thanks for helping me out on the reference desk with you fact about Doris Chase Doane -- that is insanely helpful. I know that you have answered a few of my other questions before and I just wanted to take the time to personally help you for all the work you do.

Cheers,

--CGPGrey (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You're insanely welcome.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Wood and trees

I'm getting paraniod and conflating. And disullsioned and cranky in my old age. You credentials and record are actually very impressive. Bacon is a really big thing to me, I connect to him far more than any other painter or writer/composer/song and dance man or whatever, but have not yet have had the guts to tackle the bio in a real way, ironic as I spent the late 90s compiling (typically garisgh for the 90s), a huge online image gallery of his work, and have more bios, monographs, and articles than might be considered healthy, or attractive to sane women. You caught me in the middle of a "I want out of this time sink" and a bitter fued with JC on the Yeats page, and they just meshed together and well, here we are. This is not the first time I've apologised in the last three weeks, I realised than. Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, which I accept.
May I just give you some feedback, in the hope that this sort of thing doesn't happen again?
We started the discussion out quite amiably, and I for one never had any intention to change that as it went along. However, you seem to have over-reacted when I pointed out the inconsistency between the lede and the detailed text was still there. Remember, I am not the expert on Francis Bacon here; all I knew was that two different dates were being given for his death, and I needed some help in sorting it out because I had no way of knowing which one was correct. You stated that 28 April was the correct date, but with the greatest respect, that was simply an assertion by an editor. I don't know you from Adam, but even if I did, your saying "X is the case" is not the way Wikipedia operates. We need more than an editor's word for it - we need a reliable source's word for it. Yet, we had two apparently reliable sources disagreeing. Again, being a non-expert, I had no way of knowing the Ficacci source is not reliable. I still have only your assertion that it's not to be trusted.
Then you referred to "text [you] wrote and stand over", as if I could possibly know to what you were referring. You accused me of reverting you, when I never made any reverts on that page. You made it impossible to reason with you, then you accused me of being obtuse, a prick, a tool, and working in cahoots with another editor. To what alleged end, I have never been aware. Where on Earth did all that shit come from? What did I ever do to merit such abuse? You say you were being paranoid and conflating. That might sort of explain where you were coming from, but it doesn't excuse abusive language. I assume you're an adult – well, adults don't do that shit, they work out their issues without resort to name calling and other school playground tactics. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, where the idea of win-win has to remain uppermost in editors' minds.
If you've found yourself apologising more than once recently, maybe it's time to step back and take a good look at where you're at in your life, and find out what's troubling you. I hope you can find some peace. Go well. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Your right of course, and I accept your time line and take on the 'argument'. I have a few articles I want to finish, and hope to limit myself on wiki to them only, and leave after that. Wiki is sucking all my free time, to the espense of IRL friends, and I have become embittered as a result and more than a little defensive. I'm not making excuses, something has to change. Thanks for being honest. Ceoil (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Be of good cheer

Hello Jack. I notice you've engaged Medeis on the Reference Desk about one of their bizarre comments. While you may work a miracle with your good sense, I would suggest you not be too disheartened if they explode at you. This has been a constant pattern of behaviour since they appeared at the Desks (the bizarre, combative comments), to the extent that I'm pretty sure they've been trolling all along (the alternative is too depressing). However, I suppose any response they give you might fall under WP:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you.

I give this comment not because I think any of this is outside your own formidable observations, but because I know negative social feedback can be disheartening, and I wanted to make sure you had a counter-comment saying you were right and sensible. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the encouragement. I have no interest in seeing Medeis or anyone else banned, but that's ultimately in their hands. It takes a lot to dishearten me, and WP ref desks are far more important than any one editor (that includes me, btw), so these are very minor matters in the Grand Scheme of Things, and I haven't lost a second's sleep. (Ego defences are fascinating things to observe, aren't they. I've got a stable full of 'em myself, and it's sometimes a full-time job keeping them in check. :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
FYI I have mentioned you here: [1]. I too have no desire that you be banned, and ocassionally find your comments of more than average interest. But I am of the humble opinion that you need to lay off with the schoolmarm tut-tutting and address the issues rather than the personalities. μηδείς (talk) 04:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Jack & 86, personally despite clearly disagreeing with μηδείς in a number of areas would prefer them not to be banned. Quite a few of their comments have been problematic but it seems clear they do provide some good answers as well. I do agree ultimately an it's up to an individual whether they will be banned. Nil Einne (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Warning: WP:Stalking

This is a formal warning. I don't find it necessary to follow you around and respond personally to every comment you make which doesn't involve me. I suggest you do the same. Stop providing your personal comments to my posts which don't involve you. μηδείς (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

A formal warning requires a formal caution: Be extremely careful of what you accuse me of.
Less formally: The paths of Ref desk regulars cross constantly without it constituting or being misconstrued as stalking. If you post something that requires a response, a response will be forthcoming, usually sooner rather than later. If you're at all troubled by these dynamics, maybe the ref desks are not the best place for you to be making your mark. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
You are quite aware one need not template the regulars. This is very simple. I am sick of your personal comments based on race, sex, sexual orientation, nationality, native tongue, and your opinion of my knowledge, ignorance as an American, etc. It can all stop now with your doing what I shall do--refraining form further comment in public space. I am unwatching this space. Don't comment here and don't make personal comments on the ref desk spaces and this all ends now. μηδείς (talk) 04:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
(Copied to User talk:Medeis)
Whoa there, Medeis. I very much fear you've got me confused with somebody else. Kindly provide any evidence for my having made personal comments about your:
  • race
  • sex
  • sexual orientation
  • nationality
  • native tongue
  • knowledge
  • ignorance as an American.
These are serious charges that require substantiation, or unconditional withdrawal and apology. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Well you did clarify that they were female on WT:RD. However it seemed to me to be an attempt to be helpful since people were referring to them as 'he'. Also I'm guessing you wouldn't have done it again if informed they don't want you to do that. Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Right on, Nil Einne. I did make that one reference, not in a pointed or discriminatory or otherwise inappropriate way, but simply because Medeis's gender was on the record yet many seemed to be unaware of it and continued to call her "he". I was initially going to acknowledge I'd said that, in my response to Medeis, but I felt I had nothing to apologise for by merely mentioning the matter in the way that I did. It was, as you say, an attempt to be helpful, even if it immediately fell on deaf ears. By "personal comments", I understand Medeis to be troubled by alleged inappropriate personal comments, but if any such comments have been made, they haven't been made by me. Hence my challenge to Medeis to put up or withdraw and apologise. So far, she has removed my challenge from her talk page, with an edit summary saying she'll provide diffs to any 3rd party who asks, but not to me. That's completely unsatisfactory. I've never heard of such a thing, and I'll be seeking advice on how best to proceed. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

DRAFT HISTORY: MEMO TO SELF

Table of posts
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Time Diff Ref Desk Ref Desk talk Medeis’s talk Jack of Oz’s talk
8:08 [2] Be of good cheer
9:14 [3] My response; no interest in seeing Medeis banned
12:17 [4] I noticed the mismatch between (a) a claim that an event that happened over 30 years ago was the "last actual news" out of Canada, and in the same breath (b) the claimant wondering what such a discussion had to to with the ref desks. On the face of it, the claimant was displaying scant regard for the historical record, while simultaneously appearing to be upholding our standards. It surely wasn’t necessary for me to produce any citations to disprove there’s been no news out of Canada in the past 30-odd years. I used the word "you", but in the sense of "one". I stand by that comment.
13:27 [5] Medeis responded, accusing me of making "racist ni99er jokes", saying she has no respect for me, claiming I have no sense of irony or self awareness, claiming I have made personal attacks, threatening to provide links to my "racist nonsense", and dismissing my "baseless opinions and personal insults", with which, she claims, nobody is impressed. Strong stuff.
13:36 [6] Medeis’s formal general warning about stalking
13:44 [7] Medeis amended her post to say the Iranian rescue story was the "biggest story" in the US regarding Canada in the past 35 years. She also made further claims about my general pattern of activity on the ref desks.
13:50 [8] I responded, noting that the only personal attacks and insults in evidence were those levelled by Medeis against me, not the other way around
14:00 [9] Medeis raises my behaviour at the Ref Desk talk page
14:04

[10]

My counter caution
14:06 [11] Medeis’s reply to Be of good cheer ("I occasionally find your comments of more than average interest"; "lay off the school maam tut-tutting"). She mentioned here that she’d raised my behaviour at Ref Desk talk page
14:14 [12] Medeis upps the ante by specifying charges
14:18

[13]

Medeis says if I make no further comment on the ref desk, its talk page, or her talk page, she will do likewise, and it’s all over
18:02 [14] My challenge to put up or withdraw and apologise
18:06 [15] Copied to Medeis talk page
18:15 [16] Advised Ref desk talk I had challenged Medeis
21:59 [17] Medeis removed my challenge, saying she would provide diffs to any 3rd party who asks

good faith effort

My preference, assuming that you will promise to make no further comments on my personal identity, is that this issue be dropped. But you have challenged me to provide details of such behavior on your part before. I am ready to do either; reopen the ref desk talk page thread and post difs, or drop the matter. I hope you choose the latter. Please let me know. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

But how can I promise to make no further comments on your personal identity when I have never made any to begin with? Do you consider my mentioning the fact you are of female gender to be unacceptable? Did you not read above where I explained the spirit in which I made that reference? What other comments whatsoever on your personal identity have I ever made?
You are the one who has made a whole string of disgusting and baseless allegations against me, and you are asking me to "drop the matter"? Because you prefer I do that? Why would that be, I wonder. Because you have no evidence to back them up, perhaps? Well, I'm sorry but I'm not going to accommodate you, Medeis.
What I will do, though, is hold off posting the following new thread to the Ref Desk talk page, which I've drafted over the past couple of hours, and I hope you can see fit to respond to it here instead. Clearly, some of the text has been superseded by your current post here, but I'll leave it as is for now. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
DRAFT FOR REF DESK TALK PAGE: Medeis vs. Jack of Oz
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The above thread got seriously side-tracked, leading to its premature closure. Thanks to Nil Einne for his support, but the issue has nothing to do with the names of cooked potato products in the USA or anywhere else.

The issue is, or the issues are:

  • my alleged "stalking" of Medeis
  • my alleged "continued personal comments" about my opinion of her
  • my alleged failure to "remain polite and refrain from personal attacks"
  • my alleged "baseless opinions and personal insults".

These alleged personal comments, attacks and insults have allegedly targetted Medeis's:

  • race
  • sex
  • sexual orientation
  • nationality
  • native tongue
  • knowledge, and
  • ignorance as an American (her words, not mine).

Then there's:

  • my alleged practice of making "racist ni99er jokes"
  • my alleged lack of "a sense of irony or self-awareness"
  • my so-called "school-marm tut-tutting", and
  • my propensity to address personalities rather than issues.

Quite a litany of errors and character flaws there. Some of these allegations were made above; some on my talk page, but linked above.

Medeis sought to mollify me by saying she has no wish to see me banned. How nice and reassuring, coming from an editor who's been around for a few months, to one who's been a Ref Desk Regular for over 7 years but who has clearly lost the plot and is on the way out.

She further sought to appease me by telling me she occasionally finds my comments of more than average interest. How lovely. I haven't been patronised like that for many a long year.

Medeis has come out and made these charges, but refuses to discuss them. She has demanded I not reply on the Ref Desk or here on the talk page; she has demanded I not reply even on my own talk page (I've never heard of such impertinence), despite the fact she is not watching it anyway. That leaves her own talk page. I went there and challenged her to substantiate these charges or withdraw them and apologise. Her response to that was to remove my challenge, with an edit summary saying she would provide diffs to any third party who asks (but not, apparently, to me).

Now, even if I were guilty of everything she has accused me (I'm not), I would still be entitled to know what the evidence against me is. It is unacceptable to make allegations and then refuse to back them up, refuse to withdraw, refuse to apologise, and refuse to enter into any dialogue at all with the aggrieved party.

If this were just a private disagreement between Medeis and me, we could work it out together. But it is no longer that. She changed that by raising my behaviour here. She must come to the party by producing the evidence I require. But I know she won't be able to do that, so she must therefore acknowledge her charges are as baseless as the opinions she accuses me of having. She must make that acknowledgement as explicit as the original charges were. And she must apologise.

I await her response with interest.

Okay then. Go ahead and reopen the closed Ref Desk Talk Page discussion, and I'll link to your ni99er joke and ad hominem statements there.μηδείς (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
As you wish. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) When I was a kid, I used to side-track my violin teacher (who has an article on en.wp, btw) from scolding me for not practicing every day by asking him to play pieces from the solo violin partitas. My fave was and always will be prelude to the E major.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify. The most possibly apocryphal story ends with him saying, "You talked to Heifetz? I'd give my right ball to meet Heifetz!" Yep, I am eliding mentions of other issues, changing the subject, and otherwise deflecting conflict. BoganwholovesBach58 (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts to divert my focus from the recent events, Shirt. I've got a few things off my chest and I feel better now. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Crucifiction event at WT:RD

Cheer up, let it lie, have a beer instead. Worse things happen at sea, you know! With appreciation for your long-time contribution to the refedesks, NorwegianBlue talk 21:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your support and acknowledgment, Norwegian Blue. I've now had a chance to say a few things and I can let it go now.
Did someone mention beer?  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

nicknames of Chopin études

Hi Jack-

List of compositions by Frédéric Chopin by musical form#Études again now has gobs of unfamiliar nicknames, posted 18 April 2011 by an anonymous editor. I see that back on 20 December 2010 you had removed most of these nicknames, and I think it needs to be done again, because these strike me as being very misleading to users. What I tend to find on recordings are #5 "Black Keys" (plural), #12 "Revolutionary", and #23 "Winter Wind", and that's about it other than an occasional stray nickname here and there, and usually different from those shown on that page. But I have no authority other than what I find looking at several CDs, and don't want to start reverting these myself. Would you care to look at this again? It might also help if a brief well-phrased note were posted at the top of the Études subsection, something like the explanation given at the top of Preludes (Chopin)#Description and analysis. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

This is about the best I can come up with, and it obviously stinks:
  • Fanciful (and frequently contradictory) nicknames have been given to most of Chopin's Études from time to time, although Chopin himself never used nicknames for these pieces. Only three of the nicknames are widely used [etc].
Milkunderwood (talk) 05:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


If it helps, now finally looking at all the crap up above here on your page, I certainly appreciate your sense of irony - and the good sense I've always found you to display in your posts and edits, in the ones I've run across. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Edit: Good Lord, I never even realized that Wikipedia had such a thing as a "Reference Desk". A good place to avoid. But this sentence did catch my eye: For example, because of the low black population and the limited direct history, there doesn't tend to be the same level of awareness about sensitive issues surrounding black people in NZ or Australia. Hm. Never having been out that way myself, all I know is what I see in the movies. (And of course I do understand the assumption of "black = of African descent".) Milkunderwood (talk) 07:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
A good place to avoid - that shows how easy it is to come into the middle of something unfamiliar and form the view (understandably) that the way it is that day is how it is all the time. It's not. I've been hanging around the Ref Desks since 2004, and they are always the first place I go when I get on to WP each day. They are generally very friendly places, because the regulars there are people who gain personal satisfaction from helping others. But, like anywhere else on WP and in life generally, occasionally disagreements occur, occasionally people act inappropriately, and occasionally things need to be said. I have learned SO much more from the Ref Desks than I've learned from WP generally - and not just dry encyclopedic facts either; how to interact with people, too. Not that I'm an expert in that area; it's a lifelong course. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Fatty Finn

Couldn't help noticing your comments on the Fatty Finn talkpage where you raised the issue that the article was about the 1980 film and didn't mention the comic strip on which it was based, Fatty Finn, or the strip's creator, Syd Nicholls. I've tried to rectify that by creating articles for both. I hope that this fills those missing gaps. Dan arndt (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks, Dan. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Liszt, etc.

Greetings from the darkening half of the earth! Regarding this: yes, happy birthday Franz. Funny, I saw that just as I was listening to Claudio Arrau play the B Minor sonata. There's a lot of beauty and wonder in Liszt's music, and I'm glad to say I haven't even heard it all yet. (Rather fond of the Années de pèlerinage, by the way; the LP set was a birthday present from my parents when I was a kid.) On a completely different matter, as I haven't been visiting the RD much, I just happened on this, which, after uttering "WHAT the ...??", I read all the way through. You have done nothing wrong, nothing. I'm frankly horrified. Good job on the dignified and thorough response. All the best, Antandrus (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Beauty and wonder indeed, Antandrus. There's just so damn much of it, though. Even listening to all 99 CDs of Leslie Howard's massive project would be a lifetime task - and that's just the piano music. Pity we tend to get fed the same old warhorses again and again (2nd Hungarian Rhapsody, Liebestraum No. 3 ...). But I managed to catch the bulk of The Legend of Saint Elisabeth last week, a Liszt work completely new to me. Some lovely moments, although it's a bit long for regular outings.
On the other matter - all I want to do now is forget it about it and move on, but thanks for your support anyway. Go well. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Check please

I've recently made this Circus Galop, could you please read it and check it? Thanks, OboeCrack (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, do you know which category is the most suitable? OboeCrack (talk) 09:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello JackofOz/Archive 18! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Ref. Desk - Paranoia

Yes, spot on Jack. You have your finger nicely on the button - as usual. Best Richard Avery (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Richard. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Otium

This is my latest article. Feel free to make any improvements. --Doug Coldwell talk 19:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Expanded article. Any ideas for a DYK hook?--Doug Coldwell talk 11:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I've made it more concise. Does it need more "fine tuning"? Good Article possibility?--Doug Coldwell talk 16:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Microwaves

I appreciate your comments on my remarks, which I'm not going to add to. It's hard to refrain sometimes from applying a pin to the pompous balloons of silliness that float around the Ref Desk . . . as you may have noticed from some comments I've left on other topics. But I'm trying; it's really not worth raising my blood pressure over these juvenile attitudes. Appreciate ya, buddy. Textorus (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Forms of the name "Jesus"

I've added a late reply at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 October 29 which might interest you. Andrew Dalby 12:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Well done, tks Andrew. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Belchman...

...wants to apologize. As he is blocked, perhaps you could visit his talk page? (Up to you, of course.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

John Barbirolli

By a strange coincidence your recent amendment to the JB article coincided with a bit of soul-searching on my part as to whether to leave the article as a Good article or aim to get it bumped up to the front page as a Featured article. I'd be glad of your candid thoughts on whether this article is at the same level as Thomas Beecham, Henry Wood and Adrian Boult. Tim riley (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

List of operas by Méhul

Regarding your move of List of operas by Méhul to List of operas by Étienne Méhul: did you have a look at Category:Lists of operas by composer? The overwhelming majority of them use only the surname, except when required by more than one composer with the same surname. Do you think they should all be renamed? If so, shouldn't that be discussed first at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Bei Nacht

Thanks for the better cat! Do you know one for Der Handschuh (Waterhouse)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Belated best wishes!

Buon natale! Buon compleanno!

Dunno why, but I always get "Buon natale" and "Buon compleanno" mixed up. 4 out of 4 Beatles can't tell the difference, either. Happy birthday, Jack. xxx --Shirt58 (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Dear Mr Oz.
My husband and I pass on our best wishes on the occasion of your birthday. Our Master of the Queen's Music has written a special piece of music for such occasions, performed by the Royal Corgi Choir.
Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth58 (talk) 10:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
OMG, how on Earth did you know! Dropping hints is so common, don't you think? Anyway, Ma'am, thanks very much, and if you're thinking of a little honour or two for next year, a CH or an OM would do nicely. (So much more prestigious than those vulgar knighthoods and MBEs.) Regards to the Husband and Family. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:People who died on aircraft in mid-flight

Category:People who died on aircraft in mid-flight, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger One ping only 23:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

About Max Schlosser (singer) and Max Schlosser zoologist and paleontologist

Hi Jack. I seem to have misplaced my Groves. Could you possibly help me out with this? --Shirt58 (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

How about Max Schlosser (tenor)? A start, and a bit more, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Adding to the picture, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
pictured, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 Done! --Shirt58 (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

White

Good move to bin those categories; I'd have done it myself had I realised they were there. Tony (talk) 10:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Eternal vigilance is our watchword. Cheers, Tony. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Question (for a Russian speaker)...

Hi Jack! Do you have an opinion about this? (If you don't want to get involved in a nationalist squabble, no problem ... LOL ... but I am curious to know if you can assess the validity of that Russian source). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Vaterländischer Künstlerverein

Hi,

I've located an online paper covering Part II of this and I've used it to update the page slightly. You might want to have a look over it yourself as you may spot useful information I've missed.Graham1973 (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Russian translation

It could be Ukrainian, but I think it is Russian. I copied it from Jimbo's page. I'm just curious as no one has translated it there.

Ты заебал уже со своими обращениями. Я нихуя не дам тебе денег, сраный пендос. Достало уже видеть твою рожу и рожу твоего волосатого программиста. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abu-al-valid (talk • contribs) 18:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Bielle (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's Russian alright, Bielle, but a bit slangy and colloquial and some of the words escape me. Near as I can make it out, the gist is:
  • You've fucked up with your appeals. There's no way I'm giving you any money. I'm tired of seeing your mug and that of your hairy programmer.
No idea what сраный пендос means.
Sorry for the delay. My bad. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Grace Hoffman and others

Thanks for taking her on your to-do-list! I noticed (with pleasure) that you also list Vier erste Gesange, but you can't be serious about the title. (You who told me not to use Der 100. Psalm.) Call it Four Serious Songs or Vier erste Gesänge, the other is so wrong that I probably wouldn't even create a redirect. Happy filling of red links! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, Gerda. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Endangered Australian English turns of phrase include "you drongo!" and "cop it sweet"

Here's a fine pair of drongos
As for this, I'll cop it sweet.... you drongo! Shirt58 (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Help with Australian biographies

Hi Jack. I don't know how I missed the news of Di Gribble's passing a few months ago. I was barely out of my teens when McPhee Gribble folded, but as a shy undergrad just moved from Hobart to Carlton, the world of Monkey Grip - the Fitzroy Pool, where the Pram Factory used to be - was still with us... A Google news search suggests Di Gribble may be the daughter of Archibald Glenn. Are we still feuding? I'm not. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've confirmed she was Glenn's daughter and I've made an edit to that effect to both articles.
We were never feuding. Well, I wasn't. I just told it like it was. Isolated incident. Slightly tetchy. End of the matter. We move on. Must. Stop. Talking. In. Such. Short. Bursts.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Language RD

I'm just telling you that a comment you posted on the Language Reference Desk was later accidentally deleted in an edit conflict. I just restored it as it was. --Theurgist (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I did notice that, but hadn't got around to doing anything about it. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers: universally known as...

Thanks, how could it sound more factual, without employing the so common adverb "also known as", or alias? 85.56.139.82 (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It's best to have these discussions on the Ref Desk itself, not with individual editors on their own home pages. That way, everyone can follow the lines of communication. See you back there. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Guess who got the last laugh :-)

"I don't understand why students always find this so amusing... but much of Shaw Neilson's work was lost", said our lecturer in Australian Literature, "in The Great Mouse Plague of Chinkapook".

And pat, like the catastrophe of the old comedy, we all fell about laughing.

"This itself was followed", she solemnly went on, "by The Great Cat Plague of Chinkapook".

Shame-faced when confronted with the reality of rural hardship and its place in the development of the many voices of Australian poetry, we resumed our seats, and started taking notes again.

--Shirt58 (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. 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.

List of Judges of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link to Gerald Fitzgerald
Sir Bernard Heinze Memorial Award (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link to Richard Gill
Zelman Cowen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link to Temple Beth Israel

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hamilton Harty

Hello, Jack. While working in my sandbox on Charles Villiers Stanford (whose article will shortly be getting a whopping great overhaul) I clicked into the Hamilton Harty one. It was about 50% verbatim plagiarism of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article, and I have therefore rewritten it completely. It is a rush job and not one of my more polished efforts, and as I see you have contributed to it before, I wonder if I could persuade you to have a look at my rewrite and amend ad lib. Tangentially, I think the info in the Harty article in re the Moeran Symphony is yours: have you got a citation you could add? Regards. Tim riley (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Two articles that need merging

Hi Jack. Two articles Kim Eunseong and Eunseong Kim (Supersolid and Quantum Matter Research) are about the same person. I tried to move the latter and discovered the former. I am thinking of cutting and pasting from the latter (a newer article) into the former, and then requesting deletion of the latter. Is that the way to approach this? Also, what is the WP convention about ordering non-european names? --Greenmaven (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Greenmaven.
According to Korean name: A Korean name consists of a family name followed by a given name, as used by the Korean people in both North Korea and South Korea.
But later, we read: Because of the many changes in Korean romanization practices over the years, modern Koreans, when using European languages, romanize their names in various ways, most often approximating the pronunciation in English orthography. Some keep the original order of names, while others reverse the names to match the usual Western pattern.
So, it seems to me an article for a Korean ought to use the name order the person themself uses, or how they're most usually referred to in sources.
The way I merge articles is to:
  • choose the target article (let's call this A). This will usually be the one with the correct or optimal name. Sometimes both articles have the wrong name, so it's just a case of choosing the more developed article, renaming it by moving it to the preferred name, and then continuing as below
  • copy into A whatever material is in the other article (B) that isn't in A, and isn't inconsistent with A. If there are any inconsistencies, and both lots of conflicting information is sourced, I first investigate this and resolve it.
  • there may be some rewriting or reordering of information required to make it read well
  • save the changes to A. You then have an article with the proper name and with all the good material that was in both original articles
  • convert article B to a redirect, by replacing all of its text with: #REDIRECT [[<Name of Article A>]].
Come back if this needs any further explanation. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I have merged the two articles but I ended up with a double-redirect. Can that be fixed? --Greenmaven (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem. The article is now at Eunseong Kim (physicist), and anyone who clicks on either of the original 2 article names will be redirected there. Excellent outcome. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 17:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. A bot has already fixed the double redirect. Regards --Greenmaven (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

What's your deal?

Are you a little bit anal about your grammar? Thanks for making me look like an idiot for the world wide web to see. Lighthead þ 05:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I accept your apology in advance. That is, after all, the only reasonable avenue open to you now that your mistake has been pointed out in the other two places you raised this complaint. Regarding your concern about your reputation on the web, you're doing a damn fine job of spreading the word all by yourself. Congratulations. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
That's where you're mistaken. I'm not concerned about my reputation, I'm concerned about being slandered by you and nobody giving a darn. And why would I apologize to you? You obviously have a pretty high opinion about yourself. Lighthead þ 20:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
We'd care quite a lot if you had been libelled on WP. (Slander we can't do much about as it is spoken and thus beyond the bounds of WP.) Where is the problem? The only person Jack referenced in his response to your question on the Ref Desk is the prime minister of Australia and that was for her sloppy speech. As far as I can tell, no one else has read his comment otherwise, and you have been so advised. Bielle (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
(ec with Bielle) Lighthead -- I too read that thread on the Ref Desk, and then again, in order to try to figure out what on earth has offended you so. Jack was quite clearly not talking to you, or about you; he was making a side point about something Julia Gillard said, showing a short attention span. Nothing made you "look like an idiot", and there's no "slander." Really. There was nothing. I'm not making this up. Please -- you might not want to take the advice of some passing stranger, but here it is -- you really should just let it go. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, I should reread it. Thanks. Lighthead þ 21:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I reread it, and apologies are in order. It may have to do with my unfamiliarity with the Prime Minister of Australia, and me being American; I don't know. All I know is that I'm really, really sorry Jack of Oz. I'm so sorry. Perhaps I should be less sensitive in the future. I hope I can be forgiven. I retract my ANI grievance. Lighthead þ 21:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Apology accepted, again.
I need to extract a lesson out of all of this, Lighthead. I've re-read it too, and the only thing I can see that could possibly have caused you to react the way you did was my "I'm not having a go at this particular speaker, but what Julia Gillard said recently is very typical". As I've pointed out elsewhere, "this particular speaker" was always about the next person I mentioned, Julia Gillard. It was never about the person I was replying to, you. I was the very first person who replied to your question, and if the comment had been about you, I wouldn't have referred to you obliquely in the third person as "this particular speaker" (you being a writer in this context, not a speaker at all), but I would have addressed you directly in the second person as "you".
Maybe if I'd said "her", rather than "this particular speaker" ... but then again, you might have been a woman too, and still thought I was making a criticism of you.
I could have written "I'm not having a go at Julia Gillard, but what she said recently is very typical". Maybe I'll try that formulation next time. I am genuinely a long-time advocate of Plain English, which is not just about using simpler and shorter words, but also about expressing oneself in as clear and unambiguous a way as possible. If 99 people out of 100 understand my meaning, but the 100th doesn't, that means there's still room for improvement. I constantly look for ways to polish up my language, and occasions such as this are still beneficial in that they reveal areas of improvement, even if I can do without the unnecessary angst.
Thanks for the positive aspects of this interchange. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Well I'm glad that you're able to see some good out of the whole situation. I'm not a woman anyway; Not that there's anything wrong with that... And once again, maybe I get way too hypersensitive the second I step onto Wikipedia. "Cheers!" Lighthead þ 22:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, maybe that's something you could take a look at and figure out why you get that way, and see if 2012 can't be a whole lot better for you. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
It might have to do with the way I see Wikipedians in general. I haven't been here as long as you have; but I haven't always had pleasant experiences in general. A brief encounter on Wikispecies was enough for me. I'm not like that in real life. But anyway; thanks for being as understanding as you are. Lighthead þ 05:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar of Civility

Civility Award
Having stumbled across a few threads lately that you've been involved in, I've been impressed with your civil and above-board responses to some intemperate editors. You haven't been inappropriately meek, but you have been unfailingly civil, and I congratulate you, sir. Colonel Tom 09:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Wow. Thank you, sir. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with this. Jack's a class act. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Double wow. All I would say is, it takes one to know one. Thanks, Antandrus. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Violin Sonata (Franck)

You jumped in ahead of me, doing the *exact* same thing as I was typing and rearranging - I was surprised to see (edit conflict). I just want to go back now and check for duplicate links, like for Argerich in the flute. Milkunderwood (talk) 09:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Great minds and all that,  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I left her link in the cello - she's in the violins, but someone looking at cello won't notice her there. Milkunderwood (talk) 09:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Jack, I have a question about the 3rd movement, if you might know the answer. I'm not a musician, know nothing at all about it, but am just trying to catalog a large collection of recordings. Is it supposed to be a "Recitativo-Fantasia" that is played "ben moderato", or does the movement start with a brief "Recitativo" that then moves into the "Fantasia" that is played "ben moderato"? All of the discs I have here are slightly different in the way they print it. Thanks for your help. Milkunderwood (talk) 09:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

According to the score at IMSLP, the 2nd movement is titled “Recitative-Fantasia”, and the marking Ben moderato appears right at the start. After only 4 bars, however, we have largamente con fantasia. Whether that means the recitative is now over and the fantasia has now started and Ben moderato no longer applies, is not immediately clear. A little later the recitative returns, followed again by con fantasia. Other developments also ensue.
I take all that to mean that Ben moderato generally applies throughout the movement unless otherwise directed. But maybe we need someone with more musicological expertise to comment on this. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that answers my question - thanks very much. I'm just trying to use a standardized formatting such as e.g. "Scherzo: Allegro non troppo", "Finale: Allegro", etc, and using an isolated hyphen to indicate attacca or a tempo change within a movement, or for instance "Allegro - Cadenza - Tempo I". So here I wasn't sure whether to put

  • Recitativo-Fantasia: Ben moderato, or
  • Recitativo - Fantasia: Ben moderato

It looks like the first of these will be correct. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you watch this one please?

Jimmy Watson Memorial Trophy deserves to be kept. I could not find the references I hoped for. --Greenmaven (talk) 10:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

Why did you write so small with such a large amount of text? It's really annoying so I'm not reading it. Puffin Let's talk! 23:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

And compliments of the season of peace and goodwill to you, too.
Really, it would have taken you literally all of 1 second (on a slow day) to click the Edit button and read it in edit mode, where it's as large as life. But no, you chose to spend many more seconds than 1, to come here and have a whinge. If you'd asked politely, I might have been happy to increase the size, but ....
You have a userbox that says "This user wants to be your friend". Best of luck with the approach you're using so far. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
What is "the season?" Can you be sure I celebrate it? Also, are you implying that I am incompetent? I was just telling you my opinion to make you aware that it can be annoying to read quite a long block of text in a small size. Please apology as that wasn't very civil. Puffin Let's talk! 10:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
You've misquoted me. I said "the season of peace and goodwill".
You weren't "just telling me your opinion". You have refused to read my small-type post at all. Not that I care one way or another about that, but if it's so important to you to come here and go on about how hard it is to read, it must have some value for you. Yet you're depriving yourself of whatever that value is. This is way beyond "just telling me your opinion". I'm reminded of the truculent little child who gets into an emotional state and refuses to eat his dinner, then blames his parents for his feelings of hunger.
No, I certainly wasn't implying or suggesting you're incompetent, but for you to even raise that issue like that puts you squarely into the Suspected Troll category. I mentioned Edit mode merely to make the point that the solution was always in your own hands. And still is, by the way. But that's not much use if you're choosing not to avail yourself of it. Still, that's your choice, not mine.
Please re-read your original post, and then tell me again who owes whom an apology for lack of civility. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Calling an established editor a troll is not good. That's actually quite bias. Also, you are again personally attacking me by implying that I am truculent, by using an analogy which reminds of you this situation which is completely irrelevant. Puffin Let's talk! 12:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Good night, and good bye. We're done here. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Reburials

Hi. Browsing your Bits and Pieces (as one does), I see that you haven't included the Paris > Florence reburial of Rossini. Season's greetings! --GuillaumeTell 18:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Good Lord, I haven't touched that page for years. I started gathering a few facts before I realised it was going to be a major project, so I just let it go. It's really the stuff of a dead-tree book. Elsewhere I have the sad remnants of a multitude of things I started but never finished, in the philosophy of "You've got to try out a lot of stuff before you hit on the things you're actually going to see through to the end". That applies to jobs, books, wives, boyfriends, recipes, Wikipedia articles, you name it. Cheers back. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Rosina Raisbeck (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Victoria
William Refshauge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Victoria

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Suites

I'm not sure that Suite of Dances (from Dybbuk Variations) and West Side Story Suite fit Category:Suites in the same sense or to the degree that musical suites do. The former has a very complicated history — Robbins was never pleased with its predecessor — and the "Suite" is all that survives. The latter got the word "Suite" appended to its name to distinguish it from the musical (and movie) but doesn't use much of the original choreography — and has a happy, well, happier ending no less! — Robert Greer (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln's patent

Could you look over this article for copyediting, if you have time?
Thanks! --Doug Coldwell talk 16:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a few very minor tweakettes, Doug. Excellent work. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JackofOz/Archive_18&oldid=1190245427"