Jump to content

User talk:JackofOz/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Hector Crawford - how come nobody's written his article yet?

A very good question!--Shirt58 (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing, Shirt. Amazing how such an institution could be so quickly forgotten. If that's his fate, what's it say about "institutions" like you and me, eh? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 12:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Anton Sistermans

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Graeme. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 08:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

...for your comment! I went about it the right way, for days, and days. I made every possible suggestion, and tried all sorts of alternatives. The response was simply NO. Nothing significant was changed! No suggestion about taking a broader view registered in the minds of the authors.

I really don't give a fart about antagonising the authors of the article. I just want to make it clear to anyone who reads it (and 15,000 people have visited the article today) that there really is life beyond Diana. How can anyone be so ignorant to question that the Queen's visit to the Pope was of major significance in her reign? They are very particular about stuff that you can get exactly right, the number of realms and dates, but cannot see the big picture at all.

Where are you? are you anywhere near Gilmore's Pub? I might as well be drunk as angry!

Amandajm (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW the deadline, "by tomorrow" isn't my deadline. It is the major event to be held for the Jubilee. That is why the article is front page this week. Amandajm (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I have no idea where Gilmore's Pub is. I live in Maffra, Victoria. Where are you?
  • I'm not going to trawl back through the records, but I simply do not believe that it is the case that you presented some perfectly reasonable suggestions but were rudely rebuffed with "NO", without any discussion.
  • It is possible to get so close to an article that one cannot see it being any other way. If the lede has for a long time included a certain piece of information, it can take some doing to remove it because of the inertia it has acquired.
  • It it equally possible to get so attached to some ideas for change that any resistance to them is magnified way out of proportion. Remember, these articles are not written by any one person. It's always a team effort, and the consensus must always dictate how they go. If you have explained your proposals carefully and rationally, but they have not been attractive to the majority, that is pretty much the end of the matter. At least for now.
  • Also remember that any of those 15,000 people who accessed the article today can change it at the click of a mouse. And another 15,000 tomorrow, and so on. Sure, most readers are not interested in being editors, but some will be, and if the lede was as grossly offensive as you indicate, why has nobody else been so affected? At least enough to come to the talk page and ask a question or two? No, your somewhat agitated state says to me that you're not in a good space right now to be making good judgements about the thing you're concerned about, because you are not in control of your attitude to it. You are not in the driver's seat; it is driving you.
  • My strong suggestion for now is to go and have that drink (but don't take the car), do anything else that will help you get it off your chest, have a good sleep, maybe even have a good cry, and just let it go till tomorrow or the next day or next week. Then come back. It'll still be there. Most likely exactly as it is now. But you may be different, and that will make all the difference in how you see it and in how its egregious deficiences affect you, or not.
  • Also, be aware that hardly a single one of those 15,000 readers will care as much as you do about the lede or anything else. That's not an invitation to suddenly drop your standards, but it is an invitation to remember that what we're doing here is being of service to our readers, and being of service is not about struggle or duty or angst, it's about joy and flow and fun, and most particularly it's about what's in it for you. Yes, you. That's heresy if you're from a traditional Protestant work ethic or Catholic guilt background, I know, but there it is. If you're not getting, not just as much back from your involvement in Wikipedia as you put in, but actually more back, then you're not constantly replenishing your inner reserves, and you will inevitably dry up and burn out. I've seen it happen to so many people, who crash and burn and become incredibly embittered, unless they realise what's going on and do something about it before it's too late.
  • You really have to stop now, and just relax and let it go. Time to focus on you and what you need. Wikipedia is not going anywhere anytime soon, and we'll be here when you get back. The Jubilee will happen in all its glory, and nothing that's in Wikipedia or not in Wikipedia will make the slightest difference to it. I hope you enjoy the festivities. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 12:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
And what's new about the "blurb" of TFA being inadequate? Remember Kathleen Ferrier, her opera roles mentioned, but no Bach Handel Brahms Elgar, the core of her singing, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm at the 'Gong, Mate!
There are only two main editors to that article. I do understand feelings of article ownership, as many of the articles I maintain I have written almost entirely myself.
I tried every strategy I could think of to get them to a more balanced introduction.
There was not just a single "NO". It was
  • "No", that's not quite right, for this reason.
(try again)
  • "No, that's not quite right for that reason".
(try a different tack)
  • "No, that's not quite right for a different reason.
(Try something else)
  • "No we can't take that out because there is a reference."
(Take a different slant)
  • "No, we can't change the wording of that because it's repetitive"
(Suggest additions )
  • "No, we can't add that because it's only your opinion that this is an important event"
(Add a list to choose from)
  • "No, this is not important, that is not important. Why is this important? How could that be important?
(Make a broad list of suggestions as to what the Intro ought to contain, by category, (i.e. paragraph) with the recommendation that the authors find the examples for each dot-point that they consider best. Paragraphs include "Potted Biography", "Achievements", "Problems")
  • No, we can't do that. There would be four or five paragraphs in the intro! Horror!
In other words none of the changes that I suggested were met with any reasonable degree of acceptance. In each case the author's reaction was to find the cleverest way of not accommodating the suggestion, regardless of whether or not I left the choices and implementation entirely to the two editors.
Notice that I have raged on the talk page, but I haven't touched their precious baby, because I do not want to start an edit war, over a front page article.
I doubt if you would find a single contribution by me that hasn't been deleted, even though I know the subject well, and write well!
I care, because Elizabeth II is a real person. Her biography is just as important to me as that of my dear friend Wendy Richardson, my old teacher Jean Isherwood, and my mother-in-law Margaret Diesendorf. It offends me that they treat her, as a person, with such total lack of empathy.
The reason other people don't perceive the problems is that they are accustomed to scandalrag reporting. They believe Di was a saint, and therefore must feature in at least three sentences in the intro to the Queen's biography. But the main reason is that errors are of imbalance and omission. Nothing offensive has been said! it is very hard for your average Wiki reader or even editor to realise that unless they really know the subject, and come at it from a point of view of someone who has marked a large number of history papers!
Coffee is my drug, as a matter of fact. But I might have a wee nip with it!
Amandajm (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Support I was hesitant about starting an edit war. But having had several supporting comments on the QEII talk page, I bit the bullet, and rewrote much of the Introduction. The two protective authors will probably find it hard to delete, since it's well referenced. Found a "luverly" quote from Boris! [1] It's worth reading. Amandajm (talk) 05:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Timothy Laurence

I notice that you moved the page from Tim to Timothy, with the comment that there is no evidence that he is known as "Tim". Well, it was moved back to "Tim".

So I Googled it and he is overwhelmingly known as "Timothy" in "reliable" sources, but occasionally "Tim" in the more chatty ones. So I moved back to "Timothy Laurence"> It seems ridiculous to have him listed in an encyclopedia by something other than the name he was knighted under, but ...well, this is Wikipedia.!

The QEII matter is sorted. I rewrote at length, and then smiled sweetly while it was honed down, removing the brilliant quote from Boris, but still leaving a much fuller and more balanced account.
Amandajm (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed. Seems a reasonable outcome prevailed this time, but all those demands of yours were unnecessary, since you just went ahead and did it yourself anyway. Now go and have that cuppa. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 18:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

who's who in australia

do you have access to that book in your library please? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I hope to get to it today, Kitty. We've had wild weather and local flooding here for the past 3 days. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 19:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
My local library, bless its heart, does not run to Who's Who. There's a copy in the library at the larger town down the road. I might be going there on Friday. I can still get out my driveway and into the township at this stage, but there are huge lakes all around me where normally there are cattle grazing on whatever that green stuff is. The flood waters have risen since yesterday - since this morning, even. The rain has stopped, so cross your fingers we've just about reached the peak. Ah, the joys of country life. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 04:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
There was me imagining you in the city, surrounded by classical music. Thank you for your response. Are they shown as s and d or do they have names? I found a hint that two of their children were born profoundly deaf. Kittybrewster ☎ 07:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Just s and d. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 10:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
They are a very generous family. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 10:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Categories at Victor Herbert

Hi. I see that you have edited Victor Herbert before. Are you good with categories? See if you think this is right - it looks strange to me: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victor_Herbert&diff=496483717&oldid=491085540 -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, strange indeed. He was never a German anything. He may have been technically British but he is always referred to as Irish. I've made some changes. Cheers. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 21:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Thanks for looking into that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

List of Piano Composers

Hey there!

I'm playing around with a fairly different setup for what is (right now) essentially just a bare list of piano composers], and I'd love for you to take a look at it. Right now, I'm specifically playing around with the 20th-century list. I've made a sortable table with quite a bit more information, largely because I feel like the bare list by itself offers almost no information to those who would be viewing the list: (a) people who aren't familiar with hardly any 20th-century piano composers, and perhaps would like just a few representative names, (b) people who are looking for 20th-century piano composers of a specific style, nationality, or time frame, or (c) people already familiar with 20th-century piano lit, but want to expand that knowledge some. However, I have several questions, concerns, etc. -- see the list's talk page for more details. Any thoughts, suggestions, or help you could give would be great. Thanks! --Cjeads1988 (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Enigmatic post from Kitty B

[2]. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 10:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
russian piano composers Kittybrewster ☎ 14:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Azaria

GoodonyerMate!

Amandajm (talk) 02:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey!

How come Guinness Book of records said that the largest pageant of boats prior to the Thames Diamond Jubilee Pageant was at Bremerhaven and was 350 vessels? Where were these people, on Australia Day, 1988? I was at mrs Macquarie's Chair! There were thousands of craft on the harbour. I don't know whether anybody ever did a reasonable estimate, but it put the Thames procession in the shade. Amandajm (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I dunno. Where is the Guinness claim made? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 03:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Carl Lachmund

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Graeme. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 00:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

La-de-da

Hi, Joseph Jack. Read your contribution to this page. I'm just whistling at the sky looking innocent because, on that page, you're discussing things with a guy who goes bat-s*** very easily. As a fellow human being with normal human compassion, I hope things don't get out of hand the way they have in the past with that guy. Cheers. Guyovski (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Guyovski. My name's Jack; nice to meet you.
I'm assuming your message was meant to be addressed to me, about Joseph; and not meant to be addressed to Joseph, about me.
I do go off the deep end sometimes, but "going bat-s*** very easily" is not one of my traits, I hope.
I have to report that I've had many dealings with Joseph Spadaro over the years and never found him to be other than a perfect gentleman. Your experience is obviously different.
Best wishes. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 23:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
See my edit above, which I'm childishly proud of having learned how to do. I'm a scholar at heart who was never able to finish school. Anyway, we all have to be guided by our own experience, and sharing accounts of it with others is not a half bad idea. I'll do my best to learn from yours. Guyovski (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Excellent. If only the rest of the world would simply do as I advise, we'd all have a much happier time here on planet Earth.  :)
Seriously, though, for a person who was never able to finish school, you do a vastly better job of spelling, grammar and punctuation than many of those who did proudly graduate from our esteemed "educational" institutions. Congratulations, and I hope our paths cross again. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 00:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I just thought of something. There's no harm in providing evidence for some of the things I've said above. If you want you can review Talk:Deaths in 2012#Roger Garaudy and also click the internal link I provide within my last comment there. It's also helpful to look at Spadaro's talk page, especially what I added after I put the dispute resolution request notice there. My approach seems to have discouraged him from escalating things further, but his last statement in the article talk page subsection I've referenced strikes me as defamatory and I don't see how I can avoid eventually having to respond to it. A look at the recent edit history and stated edit reasons within Deaths in 2012 reinforces my impression of Spadaro. Anyway, that's all FYI. Guyovski (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Request

I'm sorry if I'm making too big demands, but do you think you could help me with my latest question at Talk:Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji? Thanks in advance. --Toccata quarta (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, TQ. I've responded there. Cheers. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 06:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Snowball close

"Snowball close" was intentional - i.e. "close discussion under WP:SNOWBALL". Parallel with "snowball keep" that sometimes gets invoked on AFD. --GenericBob (talk) 07:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I kind of figured that out. I can't keep up with all these neologisms, I'm afraid. How did we ever get by beforehand? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 09:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Georg Solti FA

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for editorial efforts that helped Georg Solti become a WP:FA.

This user helped promote Georg Solti to featured article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Rex Hobcroft, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Santander and ABC Radio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto 3 -- citing sources?

I see you have worked with the article on Tchaikovsky's third piano concerto since 2007. I hope I did not take too many liberties this afternoon—I just felt the précis needed a bit more detail and straightening out. Thank you for correcting the abbreviation to "posthumous" in the opus numbers.

I wondered whether sources should be cited within the précis. Previously, they had not been; and the main article already lists sources that support nearly the whole précis—with the possible exception of the occasional usage of combined opus number "75/79", a fact I added this afternoon. I have not studied the history of this usage, such as when it began, if it is appropriate, or if it is now a widely adopted practice. A Google search for this combined opus number lists at least three incidents of usage, with most results mentioning a Vox recording with pianist Michael Ponti, still available for sale at Amazon. Any reader can easily verify the combined opus number has indeed been used in times past, though perhaps not by everyone.

I feel there is a need to mention this combined opus number, as some people may only know Tchaikovsky's third piano concerto as a work in three movements.

Incidentally, I own a copy of the Ponti recording. Frankly, I believe this is the best recorded performance of the third concerto (though, regrettably, the trumpets become muffled during the development before the Allegro Brillante's central cadenza), and it makes a very good case for the andante and finale. Though both these latter pieces are slight, the andante sounds like it was arranged from a very pleasant piece of salon music, and the finale should have a light nature. I actually admire the finale, and Ponti's performance presents a persuasive case for Taneyev's arrangement. Even when Tchaikovsky had doubts about his work, it does not necessarily mean all people would or should share those doubts.

vstar3000 (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Vstar. Sorry for the delay. As long as the sources are in the main body, they don't need to be repeated in the lede section.
My real concern is that we're glorifying this work as if it were something Tchaikovsky wrote under that title, which is not the case. The only part of it he was happy to publish was the Allegro brillante. What Taneyev or anybody else did in the belief it was what Tchaikovsky would have done had he lived longer is not pertinent, as there's plenty of evidence Tchaikovsky abandoned his remaining sketches. This is completely unlike Elgar's Third Symphony, where he really did want to complete it but illness prevented him. If I were to take some abandoned sketch by Beethoven and rework it into a piano concerto, would anyone seriously accept it as "Beethoven's 6th Piano Concerto"? No, it would be published with some reference to my name alongside Beethoven's, and certainly not numbered among his works. But that's exactly what we're being asked to accept with this so-called Tchaikovsky 3rd Piano Concerto. If we usually enclose his "7th Symphony" in brackets, we should be doing exactly the same with his "3rd Piano Concerto". I need to think about this some more. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 04:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, I have thought about this some more and done a heap more reading. Seems I was wrong about the 3rd Concerto. Tchaikovsky originally thought of calling it "Allegro de concert" or "Konzertstuck", because it had only the one movement, but it is very clear he later referred to it as a "concerto", and it was certainly published under that title and has never been described as "unfinished".
However, please see my remarks and suggested title change at Talk:Andante and Finale (Tchaikovsky)‎. It seems an impertinence to me that Taneyev et al ever considered it appropriate that what Tchaikovsky started should be "completed" by other hands. He made a very clear decision to write a concerto consisting of only one movement, and that should have been that. It seems a further impertinence that Taneyev's Andante and Finale (it is as much Taneyev's work as Tchaikovsky's) should ever be juxtaposed with the Concerto as if it now at last completes the set of movements to produce a "proper" concerto. That certainly didn't have Tchaikovsky's blessing - in fact, it went dead against his explicit wishes. Anyway, looking forward to your thoughts on the Andante and Finale. Cheers. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 11:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Update: I've now moved it to Andante and Finale. The text still needs a significant overhaul, but at least the title isn't so misleading any more. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 01:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Abbreviation

Just wondering if the Department of Defence (Australia) would be abbreviated as DoD, a different one or none at all? Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, DoD. It's used at Current senior Australian Defence Organisation personnel, for ex. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 04:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I should have checked before I saved the page. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Kangaroo court

As an Aussie, you are allowed -the reference to a "kangaroo" court, I mean, even though it is a reference to an Americanism. I will also respond to you because I know you are not a troll.

First, the section I referenced was about pro paedophile activism. The point I was making was that such claims as 140.180.5.169 was making about sex with an infant not being harmful because the infant had no memory of it is the type of claim made by pro-paedophile activists. That is what I suggested he get some education about. I made no reference to being able to prove that infants either (a) do remember or (b) suffer harm because I don't know. (Neither does 140, but catch him admitting that.) The section has many references to the literature about pro-paedophile activism; many of them are books. I don't know what libraries he is prepared to consult. It is all very clear what I was saying. 140 has distorted it to his own purposes.

Second, "Sex with infants obviously causes no mental damage", is stated as bald fact without any lead in or evidence whatsoever. You were giving him too much credence when you said "The editor in question has concluded from whatever they've read that there is no evidence that an infant suffers mental damage from being sexually interfered with." He said no such thing, Jack. In fact his cavalier response, the classic for someone who is shooting from the hip was "Are you disputing what nearly every human on the planet knows: namely, that infants have only a very dim understanding of the world and no long-term memory of events?" True, the rest of us should have done better about providing the evidence that there is harm, though in my case, that's not the kind of book I have at hand at midnight.

So, "a mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted"? Possibly, but I think most of the perverting was on the side of 140.

If you were disappointed because I didn't engage with 140's rabble-rousing, then we'll just have to agree to disagree on how much rope I am expected to extend to someone merely looking for an argument, boldface, righteous indignation and all. If, however, you just disappointed that I didn't explain myself better, I have tried to fix that. And now it is 3:00 am, and even I need some sleep. Regards, Bielle (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC) P.S. Happy Canada Day!

And now the concern is here. Bielle (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Wow. I'd be interested to see the details of this alleged "long-term poor judgement". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 19:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
There are links to two specific Arbcom cases within the comments' section, one paedophilia related and one not. Carnildo has been desysopped before for poor judgement. More evidence is coming it would appear. Bielle (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
These are two distinct issues and the discussion regarding Carnildo's block has no bearing on whether characterizing the IP's comments as pro-pedophilia advocacy was appropriate. I personally find the quantum leap from a reasonable assertion regarding infants' memory to the conclusion that the questioner is guilty of heinous sex crimes an unjustifiable determination and the product of impulsive thought incapable of objectivity or impolitic reasoning. It is the taboo topics that are often the most thought-provoking and the feeble-minded indignation when these 'inviolable' issues are discussed is frequently misplaced. Ankh.Morpork 21:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I like the phrase "feeble-minded indignation". I will think of you when I use it. Bielle (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Correct English

I just found this, "The multi-storey carpark outside the terminal was completed between 1995 and August 1997 at a cost of $49 million, providing 3,100 carparks,..." in the Melbourne Airport article. Is the use of "carparks" like that correct in Australian English? I wanted to change it to "parking spots" or something but wasn't sure. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

When I was still in the development business, back in the Jurassic era, we just called them spaces. What else would be in a parking garage? Of we were being really fancy, they might be further qualified by, say, 3,500 spaces, including 10 handicapped spaces (and then you could waste a few minutes wondering what handicaps a space might have: crooked lines, depression . . .). This is in Canada. Bielle (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's weird, and very atypical. We refer to individual "parking bays" or maybe "spaces", but "carpark" only ever means the whole place that accomodates thousands of cars. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 02:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you I'll away and fix the article so it reads smoother. Interesting that southern Canada uses spaces. I wonder why I use spots and if it is a northern thing or just some left over British English. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
We use "spots" too, but that's more a general term for anywhere you can legally park your car, or at least have a good chance of getting away with it. It wouldn't necessarily refer to a place in a dedicated carpark per se; it could just mean a designated parking space on the side of the road; or any place where there's no obvious No Parking signs. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 06:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
You are probably right. I should warn you though, if you ever come to visit make sure you use the car park but you can pick your own spot. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh boy, no parking hassles. I'm on my way. :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 06:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

My evil plan is starting to work....

I've now caused another editor to spell the possessive form of "it" as "it's": [3]. Soon I and my evil minions will be unstoppable ! :-) StuRat (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, at least you acknowledge the evilness of your ghastly project. That's the first step, accepting you have a problem. Get down on your knees, say a sincere act of heartfelt contrition, resolve never to tread this evil pathway ever again, and the heavens may in time forgive you. I only hope it's not too late, because none of us is getting any younger. It's surely worth a try. The future of civilisation as we know it is at stake here.  :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 02:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Never ! StuRat (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
These questions will serve you as a reality check. DriveByWire (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Why, how kind of you to think of me ... as a bipolar maniac. Words cannot express how I feel about this. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 19:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
DriveByWire, I can't think of anything that link to a "bipolar test" could mean that would not be outrageous. Jack and StuRat are having a bit of harmless fun on a topic that has has them at loggerheads in the past, and on Jack's talk page at that. Do you have a problem with this? Bielle (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Had a thought: perhaps DriveByWire is making a pointy reference to the discussion of Medeis's "cretin" joke. Bielle (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I cannot understand why the Spring is so late in coming ... I hope there will be a change in the weather ... When I was visiting my friend the Cornish Ogre, he once served me a delicious dish of Baked Troll à la nouvelle-hollandaise. I must ask him for the recipe.
  • Thanks, Bielle. DBW doesn't need my permission to continue discussing that matter in the very thread that he/she initiated on the Ref Desk talk page. I don't understand why one would open up such a discussion but then take pot shots both there and elsewhere at those who respond. Unless .... nah, surely nobody is that malicious.
  • I'll leave this here for all to see, but DriveByWire is not welcome to post again to my talk page unless in positive terms that conform to all WP rules and all other rules that I arbitrarily decree. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 20:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The "you" in my post is StuRat, under whose post my post is correctly indented. If someone else finds that self-rating scale useful or interesting then I am happy for them too. @Bielle I have difficulty following your questioning but if you like to bring me up to speed on your thinking, I suggest we discuss it on your page. DriveByWire (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
DriveByWire has a "hot button" with Sturat in respect of the Great Its/It's War. See this and this. I suggest he either go back home or develop a sense of humour about it, as Jack and Sturat seem to have done. Bielle (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Rules that I arbitrarily decree

  1. If you're starting a new debate, or continuing an existing debate, with another editor, do so in your own space or theirs or some other appropriate place, not here. Drive By Wire, you chipped me for not leaving many diffs, so presumably you know how to do it. Take diffs of anything you like from this page, but actually conduct your third-party conversations away from here. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 00:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, as you wish. Bielle (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Jar Jar Binks

I reverted your last comment on entertainment. Please don't leave your comments within or appended to mine. I am surprised you are unfamiliar with Jar Jar Binks, but it would have been easy enough to search for the term if you are unfamiliar with it. μηδείς (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Point taken about the comment. I was just seeing how far I could stretch the rules. There's plenty of precedent for that these days - isn't there.
But are you seriously using a fictional character from Star Wars to verify, well, anything really, but in particular that there's nothing bad one could say about The African Queen, made c. 20 years earlier, and any movies made later? Answer: No, you couldn't possibly have been serious. I conclude that this was another example of your humour. I'm glad I worked that out. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 01:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
One of these days I will cease to surprise you. Jar Jar was a 'reference' in support of the horribility of Phantom Menace, not in favor of Star Wars. Maybe I will comment more on the entertainment page. I was actually serious that I think the good movies I listed are "perfect" films though, although not the only or necessarily the best. μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying what Jar Jar was all about.
There's a huge gulf between "There is nothing bad/good one can say about X, Y or Z ..." and "I think the good movies I listed are perfect films". I'm glad you bridged that gulf. No matter what your opinion of anything is, I can guarantee you'll find others of a contrary opinion; and you cannot legitimately present your opinions as if they were statements of fact or truth. You would know from your time at Wikipedia, if from nowhere else, that lots of things can be verified but not a single one of them is ever true merely because any particular person says they are true. This is especially the case when it comes to things like movies, for which there can only ever be individual subjective assessments. Fwiw, I also love The African Queen, Gosford Park, and O Brother, Where Art Thou. I saw Star Wars when it was first released, enjoyed it, and I'm sure I've seen it again on TV, and I've seen some of the others in the series - but they're not the sort of movies that appeal strongly to me. I've started watching The Fifth Element more than once, but always get bored and switch it off. The other three I've never seen and am not likely to. I saw the original Shaft and have always liked its theme music. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 03:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
But that was the entire fun of the comment; giving an aesthetic opinion as an absolute statement of fact. Frankly, I had a hard time even thinking of bad movies, and just mentioned the first three I could pound out of my brain. But I don't usually say something for effect without also having a point. I could defend my choice of those or other movies like Gilda or The Sound of Music (or even Jaws, which I don't like) as perfect movies if challenged. If you have seen The Fifth Element up to the jump scene and were still bored you won't like it. If you haven't watched it that far you should try again when in the mood for some lighthearted diversion. μηδείς (talk) 04:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Now, this is where we differ: giving an aesthetic opinion as an absolute statement of fact may be fun to you, and I've been known to do it myself out there in RL, where we have access to the whole panoply of facial gestures, voice tones and nuances, and other body language, which collectively provide a major part of the meaning of any communication. But here, you're treading on very dangerous ground with this sort of approach. I'm sure you know this, having obviously studied language, and I'm not one for teaching my granny how to suck eggs. It would be very tempting to conclude that someone who knows their way around the online world would deliberately pretend to not be aware of considerations like this, and write the same set of words here that they would speak if they were talking to their friend sitting next to them, in order to provoke reactions as a way of attracting attention to themselves, for reasons only they could ever reveal, assuming they were self-aware enough to know, which is an assumption one has no right to make. I am resisting such a temptation. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 04:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I get your overall point. Were I to say something like, "The best way to cure tinnitus is to take the maximum dose of acetaminophen for two weeks" with a straight face it might be harmful. But I absolutely refuse to think there's any possibility of anyone being damaged by my stating my opinions on those movies as if they were generally accepted as objective truth. μηδείς (talk) 04:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Is it really about "Anything's OK as long as it does no harm"?
The later version "I think the good movies I listed are perfect films" was fine. It started with I think, which tells readers that whatever comes next is your opinion, which they're free to agree with or not, unemotionally. But the earlier version "There is nothing bad/good one can say about X, Y or Z" was not fine. It was effectively telling others what they will or will not say (and by extension, even what they will or will not think or feel) about those movies, and that is guaranteed to produce dissent. Everyone can agree that your opinion of subject A is <X>, but you'll never get agreement that <X> is the truth about subject A. And that's the difference. As Ref Desk people, we have to guard against ever appearing to say that so-and-so is the case because we say so. Not even on the talk page. We never know how many people read these things, who they are, or what use they put to what we say, and we have a responsiblity to use our influence wisely and with integrity. Even more so than if we were RL ref desk librarians, because in here everything we say is recorded forever, exactly as we wrote it. RL libs are not subject to this. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 05:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
To get down to it, your statement that one can always find something to criticize or praise in a movie, while perhaps conventional wisdom, was equally arbitrary. Unless what you were saying was that people can spout whatever nonsense they like, which is trivially true, and hardly worth saying. There really are a few great works of art worth praising as such, and things which succeed without flaw at the level they set for themselves. So I do stand by the fact that there was nothing at all wrong with my comment as a response to yours--at least that wasn't also wrong with yours, if we accept your premise regarding the frailty of our readership. But Wikipedia is not censored, and the responsibility for readers to young safely to think for themselves lies with their parents. I will leave it at that, because you seem to like to argue and take issue more than I do.
But I did want to say in response to your unsolicited comments on my talk page conversation with Bielle that I have not held any grudge about last year. Do not take anything I say as somehow continuing any past disagreement. My only concern then was not to have my comments continuously characterized as following from my presumed gender/race/etc. identity, and I see no problem at all on that account. Believe me, I can't think of the last time you said anything that annoyed me, and I very much enjoy your comments and criticisms, even though obviously I do not always agree with everything you say. Think of the monty python sketch about the man looking for an argument, and picture me as Palin (but not yourself as Cleese!). I am going to unwatch now, since I have a limited appetite backstage gossip. But I do look forward to you picking on me on the talk pages, and saying interesting things that have nothing to do with needling anyone, it is quite fun. μηδείς (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The following response was posted to User talk:Medeis, and shortly thereafter deleted by Medeis with the edit summary "You are not guilty":

Carry over from Jack's talk page

Thanks for your reply on my talk page.

First of all, I'd like to ask you not to unwatch a talk page immediately after posting your views on a matter. Odds are the other party will have something they want to say in response, and they then have to chase you and split the conversation. It's discourteous, and it gives the impression that your main interest is in having your say and you don't really give a damn what the other party has to say on the matter. That may be an unfair representation of your actual attitude, but it is the impression you create when you do this, and that's all I have to go on. You did it on the ref desk talk page during last year's events. Most particularly, you did so without giving me any chance to respond to your statements about me and my behaviour, but they were statements that obviously I wasn't going to just accept silently.

Well, I did make my very full response, and it's there on the record in all its glory. But I somehow doubt you've ever read it. If you had, you'd accept that if anyone was justified in harbouring any grudges, it would be me and not you (not that I do have any grudges at this remove, but since you mentioned grudges as something you don't hold, this needed some comment). Or you'd have argued against that position. In my response I fully - more than fully - analysed our interactions as honestly and in as unbiased a way as I could, and demonstrated that your initial antagonism towards me came out of absolutely nowhere. Well, obviously somewhere, but nowhere that I have any knowledge of, to this day. Only you would know the answer to that. As to the identity matter, I never at any stage "characterized your comments as following from your presumed gender/race/etc. identity". Not even once, let alone "continuously". I don't like raking over old coals, but I can't in conscience just ignore the references you've now made. There were other things you said about me at the time, that were also totally unfounded, which I also refuted. It's bizarre when a refutation has been made, but the first party is still acting in splendid ignorance of it and is still referring to charges they made that they're unaware were demolished almost 9 months ago. But I guess that's what you can expect to happen when you unwatch pages in the midst of what can reasonably be expected to be continuing conversations. Sometimes, the other party just can't be bothered continuing, and that's the end of that. But sometimes they can. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 05:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It is nice

to be appreciated, Jack. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. A boy named Sue? - yes, obviously. But a polar bear named Shirley? - I rather think not. I guess the game's up now. I'd better remove that photo I've had on my user page for years. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 05:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Nicholas Roerich

I see you have edited Nicholas Roerich in the past. I found the article in a shambles, and have restored it to an earlier neutral and comprehensible version, with a few minor updates. The most recent version seemed to have been cut and pasted from the Russian article without attribution. I bring this to your attention so that if you see sections you think should be restored you can bring it to my attention. Please comment on the article's talk page if you have suggestions, but I will watch here in case you simply want to agree with the reversion. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I had a quick look over it and it seems to be OK. When I'm done writing my current magnum opus, I'll have a closer look. Tks for the notice. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 05:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't expecting an unqualified approval. Just if you think there's something I deleted that I really should have put the effort into keeping, let me know. My opinion is that most of the deleted material was bizarrely biased or undue weight at best BTW, your po-moskowskij Russian, kak by skazala moya babushka, seems much better than mine. μηδείς (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Nye pravil'no, a spasibo. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 06:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Paratores

Remembering two great concerts (now on the Main page) played by Anthony & Joseph Paratore, I look at the List of compositions for piano duo and have the dream to make it a sortable list, including arrangements like Stravinsky's own of Sacre, probably first performed by him and Debussy. What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

ps: including this ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Great idea, Gerda. Get to it. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 08:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Carmen Suites (Bizet/Guiraud), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carmen Fantasy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

i've asked you a question on the humanities reference desk

i see you have music in your name, maybe you will know. --84.3.160.86 (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

getting it touch with you

I'd like to get in touch with you by email - how can I do so?

On my user page, click on User, scroll down to E-mail user, and go for it. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 08:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Your email has arrived. Now you can ... send me an email. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 19:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Were you able to get my attachment? I'm not trying to rush you and am being extremely patient. However I'd like to know that you got it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.254.208 (talk) 07:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

A hypothesis

Of course I can't read the OP's mind, but here's a thought. If something is popular on the internet, even amongst scuttlebutt websites, it must have an origin, and that origin might be the truth. Indeed, there are entire websites devoted to tracking down these origins. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you keep on missing the point I'm making. I'll make it one final time and then I'm moving on.
The OP claims to have read about it in only one place. Only one. And he had a very low opinion even of that source. So low, that he wasn't even prepared to name it. Ergo, as far as he knew at that time, it was rubbish, bullshit, crap, scuttlebutt, baseless rumour, call it what you like. He did not have any reason even to suspect it was the truth. On the other hand, he DID have every reason to believe it was NOT the truth. What would most people do with "information" of such dubious truth status as that had at that time? They'd ignore it, throw it into the wastepaper basket of their mind, and move on. But not this OP. He comes to the WP reference desk to check it out. Why? Because it has something to do with Obama. More to the point, it has potential to cast him in what many would consider a bad light. At that stage, as far as the OP knew, it was a handful of mud he was throwing and hoping it would stick. I'm sure he was as surprised as anyone to discover it really was the truth. But as I said, that has nothing to do with his motivation for opening the thread in the first place, which was a negative motivation. We have it from his own words. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 21:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

English

Hi Jack,

Actually I was serious, so "nuking" my comment might be a bit too much, though I don't have proof or research. I do understand English spoken by people from Germany, India, South America, etc much better than English spoken by Americans or my former girlfriend from England. Actually, the latter is the one who came up with the idea of "international English". I hope you do agree that foreigners tend to speak something like Basic English and that other foreigners start with the same list of words and the same simple grammatical structures.

Bye, Joep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joepnl (talk • contribs) 02:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Joep. The alleged fact I proposed to nuke was "... that learning Latin or Greek is absolutely the most ridiculous way to waste your time".
The rest was fine. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 02:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

comment restored

A comment you made on the Science desk that was lost in a strange edit conflict has been restored to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2012 July 31. (See history for details, or ask me if you're curious.) —Steve Summit (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Steve. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 22:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I did end up writing up the longer explanation, if you're curious. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hail and farewell

I am sending this note to Wikipedians with whom I have most closely collaborated over the last six years or so. After pondering hard during a month's wiki-break in July I have sadly decided to withdraw fully from contributing. I have been worn down by continual carping, sniping and belittling from a wearisome few (you know the sort of people I refer to); the joy has gone out of taking part in this wonderful enterprise. I should be more resilient, but alas it's finally got to me.

Working with you has been a pleasure and a privilege: I count myself fortunate to have had such colleagues. My warmest wishes go with you for the future. I shall be happy to do any research, copy-editing, fact-checking etc you may ever feel inclined to ask me to do – but safely offline.

With my very best wishes,
Tim. (Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC))

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Frances Alda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Victoria
Oscar Asche (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) 11:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Need your input

Can you comment here?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sinfonia da Requiem

Been working on this article and noticed your question on the Talk page re. why a requiem. I think I've answered this to some degree in the article, in case you're still curious. Jonyungk (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Your attempt to find a piece in A-sharp minor

Rinck has at least one. Double sharp (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JackofOz/Archive_21&oldid=1190245403"