User talk:JackofOz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HISTORY


Contents

[edit] Simplest Sinoxenic Character

Sorry, I meant sinoxenic and Sinoxenic. Does that change your response?Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I worked that out quite some time ago, thanks to someone providing an explanation of what had gone on before I turned up. What was even more startling, however, was your persisent posting of "Sorry, I meant sinoxenic and Sinoxenic. Does that change your response". I saw it, but didn't realise it was intended for my ears. Where people have names, it's best to address them by name. In your case though, I'll make an exception and just call you "A". Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Thank you for correcting the title of "The Anacreontic Song". The idea that the title is "To Anacreon in Heaven" is so well-rooted that I would advise you to check back every now and then to see what the current "title" is. Writtenright (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Writtenright

[edit] Mickey Rooney talk page

Hi. I can't be positive, but looking back through the Rooney page history and similar anonymous IPs on that page to the present complainant, I suspect strongly that this person is User:Patkirkwoood who was unhappy that the other editors on the page weren't supportive of his changes, and did attempt to discuss this with him, although he didn't choose to participate. In any case, the note left stands as its own testimony to knowledge about Wiki procedures. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The coming masterpiece by Various Vegetables, aka Simeon Gravely

I was going to reply to your comments at the desk, but then figured that would break untold ref desk commandments about running jokes and forums and transparency and keeping on topic... I have been chuckling for a few minutes now over your post, and wish to assure you that I am not cast down by your rejection of my fine title, and am now amusing myself by speculating on the Great Secret. Three Nuns in a Boat? The Habit? The Thrilling Three and the Case of the Florentine Statue? The Nunsuch? David's Master Piece? You could -if I might be so bold- name it after your biggest fan: Gwinva's Delight. But perhaps you will go for something more obscure, like Squirrels in Autumn, or even deep, like Immiscible. Ah, what joy.

I must say, while I'm here, how much I have enjoyed reading your posts since I settled in at the ref desk some weeks ago; what with you and Noetica I am frequently in hysterics (I love his rotating ball above, by the way). Must be an antipodean thing. Oh, and thanks for being brave enough to air your work on ref desk for us all to comment on and joke about: I'm not sure I'd be as brave! Gwinva (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Why, thank you, Gwinva! What a lovely testimonial. I enjoy your posts too. Being somewhat risk-averse, I'm not usually so beave, but the written word unleashes my inner beaver. "Squirrels in Autumn" - how evocative, but also how curiously and extraordinarily apt! May I borrow it, please? If I use it, I will of course use it as the title of a piece that contains no references whatsoever to either squirrels or autumn, but I'll be sure to include a few beavers, which will leave the readers guessing which planet I'm from. But as long as they were intrigued enough to buy and read my book, after which they will obviously long for more, thus providing me with the superannuation I so richly deserve, let them guess. For your eyes only, I'm thinking of calling one of the sisters "Nun the Less".  :)  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, those dam beavers: always trying to escape and claim the credit for one's life's work. Squirrels can be just as troublesome (at any time of year). I keep my beavers, squirrels and other rodents firmly leashed, as much as possible (although I have been known to let things slip from time to time). They cannot bear to be unreferenced, particularly in works which bear their names, so you have planned a suitable revenge. Your master stroke, of course, is to include beavers in the text: the squirrels will be suitably angered to be so upstaged that the rodents will fight amongst themselves for quite some time and you will be left in peace.
Nun the Less sounds quite delightful; I presume she is accompanied by Nun the Worse? As to the third, what better appellation could be imagined than "Tim Cahill"?
And now for something completely different...Field of Dreams? Kevin Costner and baseball rating rather low on my list of favourite things, I have, indeed, never seen it. But following your recommendation I shall watch it if it ever comes my way (because, of course, one should always believe what some random bloke on the internet tells you). What is the other of your "2 favourite films of all time"? (Only answer that if the beavers let you: you don't want to cause trouble for yourself later.) -Gwinva (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It's mentioned on my user page, here. Yep, couldn't agree more about Costner and baseball, which is why I didn't bother fronting up at the cinema, and when I eventually saw it, it was because I had no choice. I wasn't expecting too much - but I was hooked from the first minute and it just got better. Btw, baseball is not what it's about, and there's very little baseball in it. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maffradite

Well, as long you aren't her Maffradite, I suppose no one will mind . . . ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Her, his, even its ... when it comes to such choices, it hardly matters, Bielle, as long as you're having fun and the other party doesn't seem to mind too much.  :)  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Australians imprisoned or executed abroad

What's redundant about Corby being listed here? I've reverted your change. -- Longhair\talk 09:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

She appears after Si Yi Chen, and then again after Renae Lawrence. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Well spotted. For a moment there I thought she was coming home and you were eager to see all memory of her stay in Indonesia removed. Sorry for the slip. All's well ;) -- Longhair\talk 09:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Go in peace. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jacques Abram

My apologies for barging into your talk page, as if my prolix musings on merging the pianist lists weren't bad enough. Wearying of always seeing a red link for "Jacques Abram" as the first name on that and the recorded pianists lists, I just put up a sketchy article about him. Checking "what links here," I see that on the page listing your published letters you have given information about his involvement with Arthur Benjamin's 1949 Concerto quasi una Fantasia for piano and orchestra. I hesitate simply to copy your material over, as I don't know and hence can't list your sources, but you obviously have good ones, and the information, which was news to me, would definitely strengthen the article no end. Would you be willing to do the honors, or to direct me to your sources? Thanks! Drhoehl (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Never any need to apologise for talking, Drhoehl. If only there was more talk and less negative action in the world. There are various online sources for the Benjamin premieres by Abram, such as here and here. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! I've added the information, keyed to the MusicWeb site as a reference. Now I'm going to go bone up a bit on Benjamin, about whom I know rather little (and of whose Australian ancestry, I blush to say, I was completely unaware). Drhoehl (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hi jack perry here

but i'm at work so no sig, anyhoo wot does 'afaik' mean? have seen this used by others i think it means 'i think' funnily enough, but just want to check, thanks jackofOx! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.254.82 (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, it means "as far as I know".  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thanks jack, next time i will give it a bit more thought before running to your kind self :) perry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.254.82 (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Not at all. We all wonder what the hell these things mean the first time we come across them. There's a full list here. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
What can i say (now follows a predictable use of newly learnt abbs) ta, godwins law made for wiki :)Perry-mankster (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The penny's just dropped, Perry. I assumed from the header "hi jack perry here" that you were identifying yourself as one "Jack Perry", and you'd contacted me because we have the same first name. But, no. You're the famous Perry-mankster. Why didn't you say so, naughty boy! -- JackofOz (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
mmmmm you being a champion of grammer as well, i shud a' used yon comma eh? thin a' wud have bin a bit mair readabil likesay catboy, love the v naughty boy Perry-mankster (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whee!

We have the same favorite painting! :) That makes me all happy and nerdy. (My favorite thing is to compare that painting with his original version from six years before. The difference just blows my mind.) --Masamage ♫ 00:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Whee, right back at you, Masamage! Or may I call you Rachel. So few people seem ever to have even heard of Bouguerau, so it's wonderful to find a fellow-admirer out there. With a very specific commonality like this, you and I have clearly become instant life-long friends. The earlier version is wonderful too, but the final version wins hands down for me. It's cleaner, brighter, and ... well, sexier.
Btw, I looked for ages for a Wiki-image and couldn't track it down because I was looking under the title Le ravissement de Psyché, the only French version of the name I've ever known; yet the title on the image is L'enlèvement de Psyché. Do you know anything about this alternative title? Many thanks. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hee hee. I think I stumbled upon Bouguereau either through the Birth of Venus or Dante and Virgil in Hell, and then got completely hooked by the gallery in his WP article (and the even bigger one over at the Commons). Anyway, because I found out about him through Wikipedia, so I can't really comment on the alternate titles. Just to see, I checked his article over at the French Wikipedia, and they list it as L'Enlevement de Psyché, too. Seems like it oughtta be reliable. (I think "ravissement" actually means "rape," although at least in English that word just meant "kidnapping" until fairly recently, so who knows what's going on there.)
I like the first one, too; but the thing that really strikes me about the second one is how much happier they both look. It's awesome. They also both have faces that look like they could be real people I just happen not to have met yet, whereas the faces on the old one are more like templates. --Masamage ♫ 05:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Asking you

Hi Jack, asking you about Russian words here[1] on the question of that elusive oxymoron. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit]  :)

Just thought I'd mention that I love Tired!Jack, if I may slip into fan-speak. Your sleep-deprived comments on the desks have quite brightened my day! Incidentally, the anonymous comment you brought up on the talk page made me slightly uneasy too, but sadly it's probably the sort of situation when leaving it has more success than getting worked up. Just so you don't feel like you were all alone on this :D

Random comment on reading 'nun the less' and suchlike above: have you read any Jasper Fforde? I think you'd probably find it amusing. Skittle (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Skittle. That means more to me than I can possibly express. I have indeed let it go. Re-reading my cyber-activity from yesterday with the benefit of a very good night's sleep, I give myself a slap on the wrist for being slightly manic. But just a tap, nothing too self-brutalising.
Have you caught up with the 3 nuns' latest adventures here? It was extraordinarily naughty of me to do that, I know, in more ways than one. I wasn't planning to do it, it just seemed to come out of me unbidden. When I see "atheist" spelled like the superlative form of a non-existent adjective, something weird happens in my odd little brain and I am powerless to prevent it. I sincerely hope no one thought I was mocking the poster. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
No, I've never reade Fforde and I was only very vaguely even aware of him. But DCI Jack Spratt seems like someone I should get to know intimately. I will track him down and bring him to consciousness very soon. Thanks for the tip-off. Best wishes. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is Uruguay unique?

I replied to your Reference Desk question: "... [is there] any other English word apart from Uruguay (ignoring Uruguayan) in which the same vowel appears 3 times and is pronounced in 3 different ways ..." I submit the word "Panama". As pronounced in Amercian English, it's pænəma, although in Spanish the vowels should all be pronounced the same. Thomprod (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nice catch

Hi Jackoz, thanks for making me laugh lots. Here's to the real Australia – I qualify my bad example on the refdesk, : )) (PS when I was in the real Australia, it helped to be driving a beast of a 20-y o fourby. Instead, people's fingers were strapped across their mouths at the incongruity of it all.) Julia Rossi (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Noch schneller

Good day, Jack. In reply to your kind suggestion and offer under "Asking the impossible", I retrieved this info from questionable sources, but the only online reference I found was a bloggy German music site. Given the level of discussion, Ligeti's sense of humor, and also his appreciation of and frequent reference to Schumann, it remains likely, in my opinion. I will have to check a published score though, or better perhaps, a reliable secondary source. I agree, it would be a fun addition. Wish I could say that I will hop to it faster than as fast as possible, and even faster than Schumann's "noch schneller", but it might take me a while. For prestissimo, we should turn to someone like Antandrus or S.dedalus ... ---Sluzzelin talk 13:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a brief nihil-update: My favorite music store didn't have the score, the Ligeti books I found didn't refer to the tempo marking. I have a CD featuring Continuum. Schumann isn't mentioned in the liner notes, but there is a reproduction of the first sheet's top half. The tempo marking is " prestissimo * ". The bottom half is missing, and I really wish I knew what the asterisk/footnote refers to. Will keep looking, larghissimo. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Unchanged rather. WDR 3's program here has it in quotes, but that is all I found online. I haven't given up, and I'll get my hands on the score eventually. (Without having to buy it, of course) ---Sluzzelin talk 04:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advice

Hey Jack. You are a man of erudite pastimes, thus I'm hoping you can offer me some advice. As I noted on Clio's talk page, I'll be in Australia for a few weeks next month. In addition to the usual tourist activities, I am looking for things to occupy my time and wondered if you had any recommendations of things to see or places to visit. I'm splitting my time fairly evenly between Adelaide, Melbourne (and I intend to spend a few days driving between them) and then fly to Sydney. Thanks. Rockpocket 18:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rockpocket. Is this your first visit down under? Welcome, indeed. I've only been to Adelaide a handful of times, and my tastes when visiting new places are probably quite out of the ordinary (really good book shops; coffee houses; music venues, etc). It's known as the City of Churches, so if that's up your alley you have a multitude of options. The Adelaide Zoo is renowned. You're best advised to access an Adelaide tourist site for better ideas. The Barossa Valley and the southern winery region are great to visit, even if you're not a wino. On the way to Melbourne, you can visit the Blue Lake at Mt Gambier, although it's only blue during a certain part of the year and may not be blue when you're there. There are many good caves open to the public around south-eastern South Australia and western Victoria, but I haven't been speleologically inclined for decades now so I can't attest to their current status. The one near Naracoorte was excellent when I last visited it, back in the 70s. Be sure to take the coast road to Melbourne and experience the Great Ocean Road - I hope the weather is fine, because when the sky is clear blue, it's a simply breathtaking experience. The Twelve Apostles are quite a sight, as are similar formations along the way. Melbourne itself - obviously a lot to see and do, and it will depend on how much time you have on your hands. Rather than suggesting things at random, can you perhaps narrow down your areas of interest and tell me how much time you'll have. (We're heading off to Melbourne ourselves in a couple of hours for 2 nights, and my availability over the weekend will be limited, but I'll respond when and as I can.) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Jack. I tentatively expect to spend about five or six days each in Sydney, Adelaide and Melbourne. I'm a nature geek, of course, so I plan to see as much of the unique Australian wildlife as I can at zoos, parks and on Kangaroo Island. I also love going to museums and will try and catch you cave you mentioned near Naracoorte and fully plan to explore some wineries. I'm quite a seasoned traveler, so can usually find my way to the usual spots, but I was wondering whether there was city favorites you might personally recommend that isn't in the guidebooks, be it idiosyncratic cafes, nice resturants, areas, parks or sights. If nothing springs to mind, don't worry though, exploring is always part of the fun. Rockpocket 04:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brahms

Poor Brahms... He'd be squirming around in his coffin if he were to read your page of insults, a quarter of which are solely devoted to belittleing Brahms. I'm sure you could dig up some dirt on Tchaikovsky if you tried! ^ ^ (Seriously though, go to a concert which includes Brahm's 3rd and just listen.)--Daftism (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear friend, you seem to have made the assumption that I necessarily agree with all those insults. Of course, I don't. They're there because they're humorous, and in some cases, ludicrous. I'd include Nicolas Slonimsky's entire Lexicon of Musical Invective if I had space for it, but that doesn't mean I agree with all those absurd critiques. On Brahms, he did seem to come in for a bit of a tongue-lashing, but he can stand on his own two feet. I love his music, and he's one of the select few who appear on my list of favourite composers. But it's interesting that you pick the 3rd Symphony. There's no accounting for tastes, but for me, the 3rd is overall the least interesting of the 4. It has fine moments, but on balance it's not a patch on the 4th or the 2nd. The 1st would come next; and the 3rd last. But that's just me. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Language Desk: Grammatical mood

No, your on the right track.68.148.164.166 (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Baaah Rock!

Some stuff on Pachelbel which I remembered too late to add to the question on the ref desk:

  • I stumbled over some genealogical data which indicate that the family originally moved to Nuremberg from Moravia sometime in the 14th century. Moravia (also Bohemia and Silesia) had then (and until the end of WWII) a German speaking minority.
  • I checked the German telephone directory and found some measly 10 Pachelbels, all residing in the Frankish part of Bavaria (Oberbayern) or not far away. Whilst it seems to be a German name (as per the Duden reference I gave on the RD), it is clearly extremely infrequent and presumable the result of the medieval emmigrant / immigrant / migrant. This would explain your friend classifying it as a foreign name.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Jones

just a referance check, in your revision of 24/5/07 you added that charlie did his boilermaking at BHP. I am pretty sure it was actually at the State Dockyard. Have you any referance?

I made no such edit. All I did was link BHP; the information was already there. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New last Tchaikovsky section

Jack, I took out the secton on "Musical Form" from the Tchaikovsky article since it dealt mainly with the symphonies and not with his music in general. (Maybe it will make a good separate article later—we'll see.) In its place I added a section on T's aesthetics, which seems to fit better with the article on the whole and as a follow-up to the section on Imperial Style and the now-much-truncated section on his musical style. It still seems rough but otherwise a good fit. Still, I'd really appreciate if you could look at it when you have some time. The aesthetics section was written in one fell swoop yesterday, so it's still pretty fresh. Thanks! Jonyungk (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Watt's up?

Dating info. now posted under your question on Humanities, and on the relevant talk page. Byeeee! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ear canal as orifice

Best. Quip. Ever. [2] bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 01:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank. You. Very. Much. By. The. Way. Why. Are. We. Making. Sentences. Out. Of. Every. Word? -- JackofOz (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Halliburton

Hey ho. Someone has deleted gay material as too dubious. Can you weigh in? I tried to go through the edit summaries to see who added the refs but can't see it. Can you? (Or maybe you don't want to bother -- fair enough. ) Thanks BrainyBabe (talk) 06:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, BB. I honestly have no idea. I wouldn't have removed those cites; they seem ok to me. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] the zone

This edit and this edit, only eleven hours and seventeen minutes apart, but a pure coincidence, I swear, I just noticed it now! (Of course I never even bothered to check the talk page. My question was prompted by an edit war in which I played the part of the bad warrior in the wrong :-( ) Take care! ---Sluzzelin talk 20:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Spooky Sluzzelin. Hey, that brings back memories. I must get Сталкер on DVD and watch it again. No worries about stalking, though. I'm forever checking out edits made by "persons of interest" when I might otherwise have skipped over them until the article next popped up on my watchlist. I don't call that stalking. But thanks for caring, mate. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] George Washington Caldwell

Just wrote an article on John Caldwell (Michigan State Representative) who was given the name George Washington Caldwell at birth because he was born on the Fourth of July. Appreciate any tweaking you might have time for. Also submitted for DYK. Thanks. --Doug talk 22:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit of the Brahms talk page

I would like to suggest that your removal of that young whippersnapper's comment on the talk page of the Brahms article was inconsiderate. As we know, the Brahms article has been the subject of frequent vandalism, apparently, as User:Antandrus has suggested, because Brahms is often the subject of papers by unruly, pimple-encrusted teenagers. These little jerks want to leave some kind of documentary evidence in the wikipedia - why should we editors have all the fun.

In this case, the little jerk left his mark not on the article, but on the talk page. And, while his comment is inane and valueless to the general discussion, it was important to him, and it was a lot better than mucking up the article with comments about rat feces. So, rather than reverting him, we should perhaps consider encouraging this behavior.

I wanted to discuss this with you, before restoring his comment myself. What do you think? --Ravpapa (talk) 05:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ravpapa. Well, blow me down. Inconsiderate? To whom? Almost all WP articles get vandalised, some often, some only occasionally, but sooner or later it will happen to virtually all of them. Talk pages are less frequently vandalised, but it still happens. Does the post in question qualify as vandalism? It depends on your definition, I suppose. It certainly added nothing, as you've noted, and in that sense it was definitely inappropriate. May I draw your attention to WP:Talk, in particular:
  • Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.
You may do, but I don't have the luxury of assuming all kinds of things about the identity or life circumstances of anonymous posters (or even registered users, for that matter), so I don't base my response to such posts on whether I think they're "young whippersnappers", doctors of philosophy, or Martians. It's the content that I judge, unaffected by the perceived age or anything else about the editor. OK, so this case is a lesser evil than some malicious troll who alters significant words in the text of the article. But it's still inappropriate behaviour, even for a talk page, and it deserves a response commensurate with that. Were you miffed by my use of the word "silly" in my edit summary? Are you saying I should have been welcoming to this newcomer, and that my remark amounted to biting him? Firmness of view and taking immediate action are not the same thing as aggressiveness. And again, assuming he's a newcomer is not a luxury I have. Being unregistered, he may have done similar things from 20 other computers for all I know. I don't take the view that we have to tolerate the lesser of any 2 evils chosen at random. You can always hypothesise something worse than whatever is under discussion, so it's always possible to rationalise any behaviour with the "at least it's not as bad as X" argument. That cuts no ice with me, I'm afraid. As for actually encouraging (!!!!!) such behaviour, kindly count me out. Since I do take your post seriously, I have to tell you how much I disagree with your position. I also have to warn you that if you're serious about restoring his post, and go ahead and do it, I will remove it again. There would be literally thousands of precedents that support my position. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, if you feel so strongly about it, we'll leave it alone. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "not a problem"

I've attempted to reply to your question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Not a problem (permlink). Dorftrottel (warn) 21:08, April 30, 2008

[edit] New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] URLs

If you can't get to the pages by cutting and pasting (or typing) the URLs in your browser, and are sufficently curious, let me know and I'll find a way to get them to you. I was particularly taken by the "comments on candidates" page, which lists the slave-owning ancestors of Obama & McCain, points out that Roosevelt was the first president with an ancestor born in Africa, and indicates that Clinton would be the first president with French-Canadian ancestry. - Nunh-huh 07:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] phenomenon/energy

I have considered all posibilities, food , anmimal pets, drafts are definatley out of the question, but sound is a possiblity as it would explain why my mothers dog is also aware of it. But not necessary why it finds it so friegthening, I could be mistaking paijn for fear. Not everything can be explained by science at this moment in time and scientists are often wrong. Theoris change all the time a Japanese genetist discovered that genetic pattens of living cells could be converted into musical notes "He realised that genes not only contained a blueprint of human life but carry a tune" a short time ago people would never have beleived this and I expect many still find it difficult to comprehend. Animals have many abilities we have lost over time, why is it some dogs can detect there owners have cancer even when they dont know it themselves noni46

15:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC) .--Noni46 (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The "Novais" spelling

  • Jack, I quite agree with you, and discussed at length this matter with Dantadd (the editor who changed the spelling; you may follow the discussion on his talk page, if you want), but it was to no avail. Dantadd claims that the current spelling rules of the Portuguese language should apply. I disagreed and explained my reasons in detail, but he remained adamant. So, in order to avoid an edit war, I decided to let it be. At least I got him to include the "archaic spelling Novaes" in the article. Best regards, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with both of you, but I understand your arguments. You can make the change, just please let me know when you do it and I'll make a proper note about the orthographic question. Dantadd (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Good show, Jack. Much better this way. It's a shame it didn't occur to me to put you in the loop at the beginning of this discussion ! Best regards, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Jeffery

G'day Jack!
"CVO - correct person?"

"he was awarded the CVO in 2000 so there's no need for this note, which might be misinterpreted as meaning it was for a different Michael Jeffery"

Well, that was sort of the point. Was he awarded the CVO in 2000, and is that "Michael Jeffery" the same person as "Philip Michael Jeffrey"? I gather your reply means "Yes", but I couldn't find anything to confirm it. Do you have a source other than "It's an Honour"? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Pdfpdf. Nothing explicit, but we read on his website [3] that he "became a Companion of the Order of Australia, a Commander of the Royal Victorian Order and a Citizen of Western Australia for his services to the State. He was Governor until 2000". This doesn't say exactly when he got the CVO, but it would be totally consistent with normal practice for the Queen to give him a CVO at the end of his term as Governor in 2000 in gratitude for his services. Further, only one Michael Jeffery has ever been given a CVO, and the GG has a CVO, so the conclusion is inescapable. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

so the conclusion is inescapable - So it would seem! Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. Just theorising here (that’s what I do for kicks, such is my life). You may not be aware – I wasn’t till late last year– that not all honours are on It’s an Honour. See Talk:Fred Schepisi for a bit of a story about my research to discover why Schepisi mentions his AO on his website but it doesn’t appear on It’s an Honour.
So, it’s possible that (a) G-G Jeffery got his CVO at some time other than 2000 and ticked the box that said not to publish the details, and (b) the Michael Jeffery on It’s an Honour really is a different Michael Jeffery. Possible, but I think extraordinarily unlikely. CVOs are in the monarch’s personal gift, and tend to be given to people who work in vice-regal households, or behind the scenes planning royal visits, etc. How likely is it that a different Michael Jeffery has had some connection with such things? Not very. Surely this hypothetical person would have come to attention before. Jeffery is hardly a common surname for starters, and 2 Michael Jefferys would really be stretching it. Thanks for the opportunity to get this off my chest. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Passing by and noticed this - not sure whether this is all now ancient history, but is the second entry on this page helpful? London Gazette: no. 55839, page 4980, 5 May 2000. BencherliteTalk 11:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, very. (Although I note they misspelled his name as Jeffrey. The poor bloke must get this all the f***ing time, so I guess he's used to it by now). Thanks. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AWOL

Hi Jack, Now that you mention it, many years ago I wondered idly, when in Katoomba, what this annual processions were for. Hundreds of penitents, in sackcloth and ashes, flagellating their bare bottoms, somewhat reminiscent of a multitude of grubby sperm on their pilgrimage towards the Fallopian Tubes, stumbling - lemminglike - towards the highest peak of the Three Sisters, where, reenacting the moment of their penile departure to the unknown universe beyond, they plummeted into the fertile bushland.
Well, I will not cause any further traumatic scars to your innocent mind, but, sadly, even the sole little critter surviving was gobbled up greedily by a slimy white monster wallowing with gaping jaws in between the towering gum trees at the bottom of the cliff.
My friends name is Antony Hazeltine, email address is <a.leza.h@hotmail.com>. Maybe the story of the diplomat / politician getting lost in Sydney rings a bell in his memory. Greetings to Down Under (I miss it quite often).
--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harsh?

Unfortunately, Jack, the poster that Cap'n D was responding to is on the short list of suspected trolling sockpuppets from the Avril Lavigne school of trollery. See the posts on the RD talk page under "Avril Trolls in May". --LarryMac | Talk 15:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Larry. That may well be true, but that doesn't of itself make this particular post an act of trollery. I couldn't see anything trollish about it. I don't believe in the "once a troll, always a troll" philosophy. Surely, when known or suspected trolls actually make useful edits and/or ask non-disruptive questions, we should be supporting that behaviour. Maybe not a gold star, but we can at least refrain from pointing the finger and assuming some evil ulterior agenda. That seems to breach AGF, which is arguably just as bad a behaviour as the trolling itself. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
We'll have to disagree on this one. The threat was made, the suspect contributions began. I'll go with the "walks like a duck" philosophy myself. As far as AGF and any other policies, I'll let my history on the desks speak for itself. --LarryMac | Talk 16:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess I'm still lacking any evidence that this question actually disrupted anyone, which for me is the only test that matters. Surely we can consider each question on its own merits, no matter who it's from, without judging it through the prism of our attitude to the questioner. I still say it was a reasonable question, and the folks who've provided answers obviously think so too. Everyone was happy and the system was working the way it was intended to work. Who has the right to intervene in that process? I'm not saying that we shouldn't be on the lookout for trolls or that we shouldn't take appropriate action when they do their darndest, but every now and then they might make a worthwhile contribution or ask a fair question, and when they do that they should be treated no differently from anyone else who asks a fair question. Maybe I'm naive, maybe I'm too trusting, but that's what makes me the wonderful and magnificent human I am. But then I don't agree with the view that whenever the same user asks more than one question on the same topic, that this is ipso facto trollish behaviour. I agree this user didn't do themself any favours by making that threat, but who knows what position they were defending? I certainly don't presume to know. I'll just finish by noting that this has taken up about 90 minutes of my valuable time, whereas if the Troll Alert flag hadn't been raised, that wouldn't have happened. So who's disrupting whom here? Sometimes we can be just a little over-zealous in our anti-trolling campaigns, and that causes just as much damage as the damage we're seeking to stamp out. -- JackofOz (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, you chose to take the time, just like I'm choosing to take the time right now. And that's pretty much the point: if someone is asking questions they already know the answer to, or questions that are designed to produce a certain answer, they are doing exactly that -- wasting our time. I don't mind spending my time on legitimate questions, but when someone is just playing around like that, it's a waste of resources and has an adverse effect on the morale of the people spending their time on the reference desk. And yes, of course, it can be argued that pointing out that someone is a troll -- and honestly, in this instance, to believe that the person in question is not a troll takes a conscious effort to do so -- also has an adverse effect on that morale, but at least in the latter case, the person doing so is operating from a position of sincerity. To me, that's a significant difference.
Also, assuming good faith only goes so far. It's not something that makes someone's behavior completely impervious to criticism, particularly when an obvious pattern emerges. (In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you're probably assuming good faith on my part, and it's not like that keeps you from criticizing my decision to call the user in question a troll. Which is fine by me; your reason for doing so strikes me as pretty reasonable. It's not a stupid argument to make. I just disagree.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Jack, about an hour before this post there began a battery of legitimate questions (on the Science and Misc desks) dealing with evolutionary biology, astronomy, geology, public administration (and many others), all of them from five of six different user accounts, all created very recently and all (I believe) from the same Avril/Summer troll. The science questions were mostly from Scientific American's website and a few other online forums. I'm sure you would agree that AGF is right out of the window at this stage, right?
I think that it would be unfair to someone who went out of their way to provide a thorough answer (some of the questions were not exactly straighforward) when the OP (seemingly) doesn't care. Even if the question doesn't disrupt anyone, this type of behaviour shouldn't tolerated.
Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello there, Jack. I feel like I owe you at least a bottle of wine, if not the infamous Ligetapocryphy. More on topic of this thread:
I think alerting volunteers about a series of questions on one ephemeral topic is a good thing. Where this should be done — WT:RD, volunteer talk page, thread at desk? — is another question. Reporting speedy removals of perceived trollery on the talk page is probably a good thing too, but I even understand the concept of silent removals, while informing the querent with a reasoned explanation, and trying to persuade him to explain and/or change his approach. To echo Jack, I think we should also go for the solution that wastes the least time and energy in general, and especially on the pages themselves. I'm stuck to this mental image of a library, and I don't like it when people shout (or whisper aggressively) in libraries. Save that for the talk pages ;-).
I always see WP:AGF as a sensible operational editing mode, not as a denial of occam's razor or gut feelings. Think what you want, no one is asking you to turn your brain off, but let your writing reflect the assumption of good faith. We're not always that candid in real life face-to-face exchanges, it shouldn't be that difficult online.
Finally, please don't let this upset you or drive you away. (I saw LarryMac's Cartman edit summary on the talk page, which made me chuckle and sad at the same time.) Once we let this disrupt and frustrate, the trolls are dancing till noon. Respectfully, and, for the record, I will never complain if one of my posts was in a thread that got removed for good reason by a responsible editor. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chantix triumphant

Hey. Jet lag hits me like a ton of bricks. Just got back from Hungary/Slovakia. You wanted to know how the quitting smoking was working out, well, I haven't had a puff since the middle of January. I give Chantix full credit for getting me off the weed. The side effects were all psychological, but rather bothersome. I dreamed that I was Linda Fiorentino, which is really weird for a guy like me, not so much maybe for a guy like some others. At least I was fairly good-looking, though, right? That's when I decided not to do month three of three and discovered that I was no longer addicted to nicotine. I am now a non-smoker. I do miss it, but it makes those long plane rides a tad nicer. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey. I got a little side-tracked, too. Great news about the smokes. When I decide that I actually want to give up, I might try Chantix too. Linda F, eh - I know her not, so I can't comment on how good you look in your dreams. Now, just what does "a guy like me" mean? -- JackofOz (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
A hopelessly heterosexual guy. She's an actress, the morgue lady in "Men in Black" and the scion in "Dogma". You've seen her without knowing it, but let's not talk about her any more. Don't quit smoking unless you have a good reason, like you don't want to smell like a wet ashtray or you're narcoleptic. It sucks not to smoke. I know what those junkies mean now when they say you stay a junkie all your life whether you use or not. Smoke one just for me, will you? --Milkbreath (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like you're between a rock and a hard place. You wanted to give up, and you did, and you're happy about that. But at the same time you're not happy because you want not to have wanted to give up, even though you did want to give up. Don't try too hard to want not to have wanted to give up because you may get your wish, and that would be disastrous. Being an ex-smoker like you is far better than a guy like me whose main claim to fame is that he used to be an ex-smoker. Have a lungful of clean, fresh air for me, will you? And have a few extra dollars in your pocket each and every day for the rest of your life for me, will you? And have a longer life expectancy for me, will you? -- JackofOz (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

Since you were heavily involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Responding to suicidal individuals some time ago I thought you might be interested in discussing the merits of a similar but slightly different proposal here. I would be very interested in your opinion. Cheers, --S.dedalus (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OA

Thanks for the correction. I thought it a bit strange when I read on the Grove that he had received the "Award of Merit". I guess it's one of their many typos!

BTW, did you like the article? I'm not usually that happy with my articles, but I was quite pleased with the way that one turned out. Gatoclass (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will fix the dab problem, just give me a few minutes.
How did I come to write an article about Hanson? Well, I was teaching myself piano once. I just got to the stage where I was getting the hang of sight reading (which was making a huge difference) when I lost access to a keyboard, and since I've never been able to bring myself to fork out for a piano, I'm afraid my piano career hasn't progressed since then :)
However, I do particularly remember a little piece I learned, call "The Garden Seat" by a guy called Raymond Hanson. And I liked it a lot. So that's how come I ended up writing an article on the guy :) Gatoclass (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I have moved Raymond Hanson (composer) back to Raymond Hanson. There was no need to disambiguate the former's name in any case, since the other guy was already disambiguated as Raymond Hanson (cricketer). What I neglected to do earlier, was to slap an "othernames" template at the top of the article. That's done now, so the problem is fixed. Gatoclass (talk) 10:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. You've got me intrigued now - I know Hanson by reputation, and I've heard a few of his orchestral pieces and his Trumpet Concerto over the years, but I've never heard his piano work. I will definitely search out "The Garden Seat" and see what it's like. Just one minor detail - the talk page for Raymond Hanson is still called "Talk: Raymond Hanson (composer)". Sorry for making work for you. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Fixed - did you see my note above about Michael Jeffrey, incidentally? Regards, BencherliteTalk 22:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hawkins

Hi! Can You give a ref. for Erick Hawkins name at birth? I didn't see it in an y articles or obits on this great dancer. Kdammers (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] mi usre page

all kinds of classes can enjoy the activity you mentioned, however, it helps to be a bit unihibited and comfortable with your breeding. JeanLatore (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the message. My question was not a serious enquiry. It was intended to demonstrate the contrast between your apparent focus on the social class of people playing basketball vs baseball, and your interest in writing an article on a porno. Does that not strike you as a little incongruous? All the best. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't writing an article on porno. I wrote about a sexual study done in South Florida. JeanLatore (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Is that what Anal Sex with Sluts (deletion affirmed at WP:DRV but I'm working on re-writing it) refers to? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes exactly. It's a wide ranging study but too generalised in its first incarnation. I am categorising the research right now and its taking much longer than expected. JeanLatore (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're really serious, JeanLatore. This is fairly telling. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I am dead serious, sir. I love anal sex! It's all we do here. JeanLatore (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And all we do around here is write a credible encyclopedia without disruption from people who are not interested in playing by the rules, but only interested in wasting the time of others. "By their fruits ye shall know them". Time to clean up your act, or move on. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

What are you some kind of bible-freak? Get off my cloud, man! And I bet I have more scholarly edits to articles than you do, just look at my contribs. JeanLatore (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I particularly liked this one: Illinois v. Gates. JeanLatore (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Curtin memorial lecture

I've been editing the Carmen Lawrence article and I was adding in a bit about how she gave the above lecture for 1994. I can't find any reference to this lecture series in the John Curtin article. I'm reluctant to tamper with a B-class; do you think it's worthy of a mention? Retarius | Talk 06:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Retarius. I know nothing about the JCML except what this tells me. Clearly, only Labor heavyweights get asked, not just any old Joe. I'd say it deserves an article, but even without that I see no reason why it shouldn't be mentioned in all the speakers' articles. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)