User talk:JackofOz/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

schools

Hi JackofOz/Archive 17. The Wikipedia Schools Project has set up a dedicated help and feedback page at WP:WPSCH/H. This for elementary/primary, middle, and high schools (often called college in the UK). It is not for universities or other degree awarding institutions.
If you regularly give advice to users, you might wish to send enquirers there - we are quick to respond. However, WT:WPSCH still remains the place for general discussion about the management and policy of school articles. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

BWV 42

Did you know, right now, have a good Sunday, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Reverting "unhelpful" edit?

Hello. Could you explain in more detail how I made an unhelpful edit with adding {{#time:Y}} (a Parser function) to Recent deaths. This will allow the year to change automatically, so a person doesn't have to do it manually. I don't see how this is relavent to the RFD discussion; I was just being bold. —GFOLEY FOUR— 18:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this edit is indeed very clever and should be reinstated. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, users have to now click two links rather than one, to get to the page they want. Doubling the work doesn't seem to me to be a positive move. Then there's the RfD I referred to in my edit summary - what about that? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

As the edit was already undone, I didn't notice that a REDIRECT with a parse function behaves like a double-redirect, i.e. not redirecting at all. This seems a bug to me. I don't see how the RfD, which asked to delete/move the REDIRECT, has anything to do with this attempted solution. If the bug ever gets squashed, that code will do away with need for annual updates. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I see. Weird how it doesn't make a redirect. It has to be a bug. —GFOLEY FOUR— 02:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:Redirect#REDIRECTs using parser functions which resulted in some helpful remarks and the advice that this behaviour is explained at Help:Redirect. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Chants d'Espagne

Hi Jack--

I see you were just now at Chants d'Espagne - did you happen to notice my new question re French vs Spanish titles in the Discussion? Milkunderwood (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I had wondered whether the 1892 publication of the first three pieces had carried French titles, and the last two added in 1898 were titled in Spanish. But I have no way of looking this up. (It's my impression that WP tries to follow the original wherever possible.) Looking now at IMSLP, they list under Cantos de España, then

Prélude
Orientale
Sous le palmier - danse espagnole
Córdoba
Seguidillas

With the overall title in Spanish, this makes it even more confusing. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I originally got to Chants d'Espagne from Albéniz rather than searching directly for the title, but now discover there wasn't a redirect from the Spanish. I've made two, for both cantos de espana and cantos de españa. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Also footnoted the four Spanish titles, but think these should preferably follow the French in the text itself. I hesitate to do this without knowing exactly how best to format. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I found your "yes, definitely" response. The problem is, I don't know the reason for the French, or quite how to format the alternative Spanish names. And it gets particularly messy, because the text already reads

The Prélude is also known under the titles Asturias and Leyenda, titles given to it when it was incorporated into an extended version of ...
Sous le palmier (Under the Palm Tree), also known as Danse espagnole (Spanish Dance).

I can't think how to not make it amazingly clumsy.

Also I could change the footnote to read something like Historically the titles of the suite and of the first three pieces have usually been "given"(?) in French rather than Spanish -- but I don't know what I'm talking about. Probably better to just delete the footnote. But then I'm still stuck with all these "also known as"s. Somehow it really needs a better and more thorough rewrite than I'm up for. --If I let it sit, maybe it might fix itself. :-) Milkunderwood (talk) 07:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, all fixed now - check it out. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

See, I knew you could do it. :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Re your revert of ref to Discussion - thanks; I wondered how appropriate that would be. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Trio élégiaque No. 1 (Rachmaninoff)

Hi again. (I'm really not following you around - this is a total coincidence.)

Although you didn't originally write this confusing (to me) sentence, you did edit around it with Latest revision as of 20:27, 21 October 2010, leaving it unchanged:

The two Trios Elegiaques are often named together with the trio of Tchaikovsky.

I think I have a general idea what this is supposed to mean, but not nearly close enough to attempt a rewrite by myself. Are we talking about a piano trio sitting around "naming" trios that they might want to play, or record, or just playing the sort of game that parents use to keep young kids amused on a long trip (or did before there were TVs and movies inside cars)? Milkunderwood (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Well, it didn't make much sense to me either, so I've removed it now, and tweaked some other things too. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Category;Compositions by Charles-Marie Widor

The article Category;Compositions by Charles-Marie Widor has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

It looks like the author intended to create a Category

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bentogoa (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Stanislao Gastaldon

Hi there. I think your change to the footnote regarding his brother is fine. But just to let you know, it was the author I cited who explicitly suggested that he probably died at an early age. It wasn't my personal conclusion. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Voce. Either way, the change was necessary. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Australian monarchists

I'm sorry that you have taken issue with this. Please view this source to verify that Sir Earle Page was a monarchist: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ave5XxaX1vQJ:www.page.org.au/assets/files/orations/lecture_1993_kirby.pdf+earle+page+monarchist&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgj1ktJl3BUfHhywiy3uDsX9uSZPiSrSeAbA_DeD2X3g9eYpLvqnrHbyc5Rm7Z-6sfDf8M2Ot9ehy8Y1esKHUXhKqj8OkyhKYa7AFeEx0IovtuC8C7ojZ4sbKiP6c4QK9QfMN_9&sig=AHIEtbRoV3tSPn-O_qL9Gw6WuZyDxGSIGw&pli=1

It even says that Page would have been 'astonished' by calls for a republic. If you view Category:Australian republicans, about half of the people in this category have no mention of their alleged republicanism on their pages such as Ron Barassi, Andrew Johns, Daniel Deniehy, Geoffrey Robertson, John Newcombe and more.

Thanks. The info on Page needs to go into his article. We can't have people categorised as X if there's no mention in their article of anything to do with X. As for the others you mention, the same rules apply there. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Nellie Melba

She turned 150 years old yesterday. Her article is rather a mess. Any interest in working on it? All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

What ho! I had a similar call to arms from Ssilvers, and am working on a thorough overhaul. Can I have first go and then hand over to you? Tim riley (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, Tim, be my guest. Btw, you never have to ask my permission to edit anything. Just do it. :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Good! I'll crack on and alert you when I've finished. By next weekend, I estimate, but she pops up in the indexes of a lot of books on my shelves, so we shall see. Tim riley (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Now done. Please add/amend ad lib. Tim riley (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

[Left] I'll look in when you've really finished. I've been getting edit conflicts so I guess you're still fiddling with it. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Humble apols! You know how it is – the urge to tinker. I've really stopped now, though I think Ssilvers is dipping in. Tim riley (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I am also finished now. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Quintet for Piano and Winds (Beethoven)

Hi Jack--

I've added both a line about the piano quartet version, which should be OK as is, and also a ref to a specific recording - it's this last that I'm unsure will fly. Please edit as may be needed - thx.

(Note the List_of_compositions_by_Ludwig_van_Beethoven#Chamber_music_with_winds article already does say Opus 16: Quintet for piano and winds in E-flat major (1796) (later arranged for piano quartet). Milkunderwood (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I've tweaked it a little. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the trouble. I'd noticed the original article as I found it was a little sloppy, but hadn't tried messing with it - your tweaks read much better. Apparently you left my addition & ref alone as is, which had been my real question, concerning the propriety of pointing to Amazon for a specific recording. Milkunderwood (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me. Some editors get a little thingy about it. ArkivMusic is always good for recording details - plus, they tend to have other recordings including historical ones. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

request for source

Hello and thanks again for telling me I wasn't being pedantic about ancestors and descendants. That OP wrote me a gracious note, too.

I am thinking back to a recent comment you made, about an old Russian habit of sitting in silence before beginning a voyage. Does it have a name? Can you find a source? I'm not doubting your word at all, but I'd like to tell people about it, as an excellent habit to cultivate, without having to admit it came from a Random Guy on the Internet. Thank you. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Brainy. It's mentioned @ Russian traditions and superstitions. The source is a Russian-language Encyclopedia of Slavic Religion, and it says:

Перед дальней дорогой надо присесть и помолчать. Это - к удачному пути. - Вполне логично, потому что именно в эти минуты человек еще раз интенсивно прокручивает в голове: все ли он взял с собой? Не забыл ли документы, билет, ключи? В порядке ли оставил дом - воду, газ, свет? А молчание помогает сосредоточиться.

Very rough paraphrase: It talks about how it's a very sensible idea, because one's head has been all over the place getting ready – have we taken everything we need? Have we forgotten any documents, tickets, or keys? Have we turned off the water, gas, lights? And the silence helps one to concentrate.

According to this, it was introduced to Muscovy by the Golden Horde but has since become a uniquely Russian tradition.

According to this, it wasn't originally about about mundane practicalities, but about making sure the domestic spirits stayed where they belong, at home.

It's also mentioned here.

To my shame, I've never read more than a few pages of War and Peace in either English or Russian, but I have seen both the 1965 Sergei Bondarchuk and 1956 Hollywood movie versions, and I'm pretty sure there was a scene in both versions that depicted the custom. Unless I'm confusing things, didn't it also crop up in Doctor Zhivago? It would have to make various other appearances throughout Russian literature, but I don't know that for a fact.

It doesn't seem to have any special name. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on June 2, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 2, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! ۞ Tbhotch ^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 18:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Edward Elgar (1857–1934) was an English composer. Among his best-known compositions are orchestral works such as the Enigma Variations, the Pomp and Circumstance Marches, concertos for violin and cello, and two symphonies. He also composed choral works, including The Dream of Gerontius, chamber music and songs. He was appointed Master of the King's Musick in 1924. Although his works are regarded as quintessentially English, most of his musical influences were not from England but from continental Europe. A self-taught Catholic composer from a poor background, he nevertheless married the daughter of a senior British army officer. He struggled to achieve success until his forties, when his Enigma Variations proved immediately popular. His following work, The Dream of Gerontius (1900) remains a core repertory work in Britain and elsewhere. One of the first composers to take the gramophone seriously, he conducted a series of recordings of his works between 1914 and 1925. Elgar's music came, in his later years, to be seen as appealing chiefly to British audiences. More recently, some of his works have been taken up again internationally, but the music remains more played in Britain than elsewhere. (more...)

Belated Anisimova

Ran across your inquiry elsewhere, answered on the article renaming. BTW, excellent article on Elgar, one of my favorite composers. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of George and Helen Adie for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article George and Helen Adie is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George and Helen Adie until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. TerriersFan (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Grunt

Sorry mate, too tired to reply tonight. Will have a go at a reply tomorrow.
FYI, my basic lines of argument will be:

If you're going to abbreviate, you've got to choose some convention.
Q: Why would you choose a convention different from the "official" Oz convention?
A: Because it is REALLY ugly. (No, seriously, REALLY ugly.)
OK. I agree. So what are you going to choose instead?
- Even if they ARE prettier than the Oz convention, (and I freely admit that they are), how can you justify using UK, CAN, NZ or other conventions over the Oz convention?

More later. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I await your further thoughts with interest. But just for now: The Australian Defence Force uses all manner of abbreviations for all sorts of things. They are a rigidly controlled organisation and everyone internal to it must comply with their protocols. But guess what - we are not part of the ADF and we are not required to abide by their decisions, on anything. Ask a random stranger on the street how they'd abbreviate "Major-General", and you'll most likely be told "Maj-Gen". Same for "Lt-Gen" for "Lieutenant-General". Those are accepted, normal, standard abbreviations that you'd find in any decent dictionary or style guide, and they should generally apply unless there is very good reason to abandon them in favour of something else. We are writing here for random peoople in the street, not for members of the ADF, and so we use language that our readers can relate to. That includes the style of our abbreviations. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree. Probably strongly.

(e.g. Where do "your" hyphens come from? My suspicion: from reading English abbreviations. Why are you pre-disposed to use English abbreviations? Etc. Etc. Etc. ad nauseum)

Better answer later. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

As promised. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Me again. Given that there are some gaping holes left to be filled between what we have already agreed, and what needs to be agreed to finish the job, where do you thing we should go from here? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Linking postnoms

Hi "Jack"! FYI, I tried an experiment at General (Australia) last weekend. No-one has complained, yet. A penny (OK, 5 cents) for your thoughts? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Anna Liszt#Merge proposal

Hi Jack, I was wondering when were you planning on merging Anna Liszt with Franz Liszt? Looking at the proposal, which has been active for 11 months, there has been four Support's (including you as nom), and no dissenters. I reckon we can call that a consensus to merge. I would merge it myself, only I don't know enough about this topic to be able to do it skillfully. Quasi human | Talk 14:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Indistinguishable from a human?

You didn't really write that, did you, Jack, that Obama is "indistinguishable from a human"? Bielle (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha! I know that would get a response. Hello, Bielle. Well, I was using it in the same way as Oscar Wilde talked about alcohol, when he said: "I have made an important discovery…that alcohol, taken in sufficient quantities, produces all the effects of intoxication".

In other words, Obama is indistinguishable from a human because he is a human. Sorry if my early morning humour was a little startling. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an American, and I reacted. I wonder what will happen when all the east coast Yankees, who are just now starting their cocktail hour, suddenly notice. If you hadn't explained, I'd have never "got" the joke. Bielle (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You have mail

Let me know if it didn't arrive. There were some rude words in it, and I don't know what your filter settings might be. Bielle (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

[1] Troll

Now I am a true Wikipedian, and it has only taken me 4 years. There is something amiss with my "attituted" and I will be reported to Jimbo if I don't shape up. I am probably a troll, just like the ones on Conservpedia. My responses are being deleted from the archives and I am generally not a very nice person. Dear me. :>)Bielle (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Oooops!

Hello, JackofOz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Bielle (talk) 05:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For, in your own words, not being a paedophile. Although mummy says not to trust a man with a beard. Egg Centric 18:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

A good beer for you!

Thanks for your open-mindedness at this edit. It made me feel good for being defended for making a defense. Have a great day! Schyler (one language) 00:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I forgot you're down under. It's hard to imagine that weather right now. The heat index has been above 110 since the Fourth of July here in Texas. Schyler (one language) 05:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

RFC/N discussion of the username "I Jethrobot"

A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of I Jethrobot (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Side discussion from "animal attacks" thread

Hi Jack. We had a bit of a difference of opinion at the "Side discussion from "animal attacks" thread" on the talk page and I somehow completely missed your reply to me (the one that ended with "I have retreated from my view that it should never be used; others may wish to retreat from their view that there are occasions when we can't do our job properly unless we use it." which I assume was pointed more or less at me). In re-reading, I can see that my earlier point was phrased somewhat bitingly (I did say the analogy wasn't that good...). Just to be clear, I would never intentionally imply that you weren't doing your job properly unless you toed a line I'd drawn (which I don't toe all the time either). You are, of course, completely free to answer (or not) however you see fit and I apologize if I gave any impression otherwise. That thread seems to have died down, so I wanted to drop you a note here in case you'd stopped following that particular discussion. Matt Deres (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Matt. I never felt bitten, so rest easy on that score. Thanks for your response. It's good to air these views even if nothing seems to change in the end. What does happen is we all get a broader understanding of how others think and operate. I'm still waiting on a response from Medeis, but that's on a later matter. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Farinelli's death date

Hello, I'm not at home at present, so don't have access to my reference books. 15 July was long thought to have been Farinelli's death date, and Slonimsky and Grove V both appeared before more recent research showed this to be incorrect. If I remember correctly, both Grove VI (and Grove on-line) and Cappelletto's biography of the singer (the first, I believe, to publish a transcription of his will, dated after 15 July 1782) give the September date. Cappelletto's book, which is excellent, has not been translated into English, and, considering the Anglophone bias of the Web, this may account for the "old" date still getting more hits. All best wishes, voxclamans (talk) 07:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the tip. I do not mind at all, I seem to make that mistake often, but as the words are so alike, the difference can be hard to remember. I hope I can avoid this mistake know when I have your explanation on my page ^^ Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that was in fact just me being careless, I'm affraid; I do know the difference between now and know. But thank you again.--Aciram (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Why pretend that you care like this? I think those of us who have seen your work for a while on English WP safely can say that you do not. Why not stop contributing this kind of unacceptable language? All that text you added to the Queen Louse article today is full, as usual, of these and other problems. Some of the sentences are in such Swenglish that nobody who doesn't know Swedish will know what you meant. Well, I'm not going to be a member of you clean-up crew this time, as you always expect of us. I quit! SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Queen Louse? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Typo of course. Sorrry. Louise. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

In case your still interested. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"Your" interested? Sorry, Serge, but I can't help noticing the spelling errors you're making while having a go at others for the same thing. We have to get ~~out~~ our own houses in order first. I'm not interested in gossip or hate campaigns against other editors. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

So sorry, Jack! I'm 64 years old and make an occasional typo when tying to do much at the same time. Even old English teachers like me do that, but not to anywhere hear the extent that is being discussed there. Oh, and your nasty slur about my alleged "gossip or hate campaigns against other editors" was unjustified and very insulting. I thought you wanted to help. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I offered to help Aciram. And I'd extend that to anyone. But your rant against Aciram above is something between you and him/her. It was deleted from Aciram's page, so you continued it here. Not acceptable. Now you're having a go at me for not "helping", when you yourself have "quit". This discussion was weird from the start, and now it's over. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

František Jílek

Hello Jack. I replied to your question at the talk page. Thanks for your interesting observation :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Schyler's "one language"

Hi Jack: Schyler and I have been discussing his signature, and what follows from enquiring about the meaning of "one language", on his talk page. We have both said our piece, but have found no common ground. Neither of us wants to jump into any of the usual circuses, and we have thus agreed to ask you and Jayron to comment. (Schyler picked the names and I agreed.) If there is still no meeting of the minds following your comments, we may ask a third user. If there is a conclusion, Schyler and I have agreed to accept it. (You may check this in the thread; if he has changed his mind, I am sure he will say so.) I agree not to argue with you, though I will answer any specific questions. I trust your common sense and would appreciate your help. Bielle (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Blunt? Yes. I appreciate that you took the time to comment. Bielle (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Alun Hoddinott

Hi Jack-

I notice you've visited the article on Alun Hoddinott not long ago. I've just now posted on the Talk/Discussion page there, and wonder if you might have any comments, suggestions, etc. (I know nothing at all about Hoddinott - I was just looking for info.) Milkunderwood (talk) 03:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you about this, but I still think the Hoddinott article badly needs one of those "unsourced opinion" warnings posted - which I have no idea how to do, or what the correct phrasing is. Milkunderwood (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Puke Albania

Thank you for contributing to my question about Puke. If you google Puke Albania the wiki entry only comes up on the third page and spam takes up a lot of the earlier slots. I am thinking that if the page dedicated to Puke had Albania after the name it would be further up the list. I have inserted a reference to Puka beer in the page and now this is the first hit on google before the hotel that actually makes it. Sorry that I am so ignorant of the way that Wiki works.

Jack username hennahenna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hennahenna (talk • contribs) 11:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Claudio Arrau

Thought you might be interested in this discussion. Cheers.THD3 (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Defenc/se

Yeah, I know how they spell it. Just trying to be a smart arse. Doesn't always work. HiLo48 (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Queen's Hall

Greetings, Jack. I've overhauled the Queen's Hall article, and I'd be glad if you would run your eye over it when you have a few minutes. Tim riley (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! (I'm not accepting a knighthood and am holding out for a DBE on equal rights grounds). Tim riley (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Cicely Courtneidge

Me again. I'm not stalking you, but I see you've had a hand in Dame Cicely's article. I've been giving it an overhaul, and any tweaks you may feel moved to make will be esteemed a favour. – Tim riley (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Muhai Tang (aka Tang Muhai)

I did some edits on his page, and I'm wondering how to revert the name as displayed in the search to "Muhai Tang", as opposed to our one Chinese friend with the last name fixation. Thought you'd know better than me. Thanks, DJRafe (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Question was archived, so I post here

Is there some technical difference between a prison and a jail, Quest09? Or a gaol, for that matter? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a legal difference, although technically both could feel more or less the same. You await trial at a jail, but serve time at a prison. I am sure most countries have a similar separation between potential criminals and convicted criminals. Quest09 (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I never knew that. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Wills' date of death

Jack wrote: Hi. Regarding this edit summary: If that's the case, what is the following sentence doing in the article: The exact date of their deaths is unknown, but has generally been accepted to be 28 June 1861. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

G'Day Jack, Wills kept consecutive diary entries until Friday [28] June 1861, although he did misrepresent the dates on the last four entries. On the 29 June 1861 he wrote a letter to his father, which he erroneously dated as the 27 June 1861. In this letter Wills explained he thought he would live for an additional four or five days. No one is certain when Wills died, but he was certainly alive on the morning of Saturday 29 June 1861. The Royal Society of Victoria felt they should set a date for the deaths of Burke and Wills, and so they chose 28 June 1861 as the date both men died. This is incorrect, as they were both alive on the 28th.

The sentence: The exact date of their deaths is unknown, but has generally been accepted to be 28 June 1861. is correct, because since 1863 it has generally been accepted as the date of death. The various monuments to Burke and Wills have different dates for their deaths - many of them do not specify an exact date, and just state 'June 1861', while others have 29 or 30 June and one has July 1861.

So the original edit which has the dates of death as c. June-July 1861 is correct as it reflects the uncertainty about the dates of death. However the claim that it has generally been accepted that the deaths were on 28 June 1861 is also correct. Rocketfrog (talk)

Thanks for the detailed response. But can't you see the problem? Exactly as I did, many/most readers would read that sentence and conclude that 28 June 1861 is the date on which historians generally agree Burke and Wills both died. Without any of the other info you just gave me, what other interpretation of the sentence could possibly be open to them?

I'm also confused by the different dates that appear on statues etc - doesn't this mean that no one date has been "generally accepted"? If everyone knows they were both still alive on 29 June, how can 28 June be accepted as the date they died? It doesn't make sense.

The sentence needs to be seriously re-worded if it is not be grossly misleading - something like: "While some sources state that they died on 28 June, this is clearly not the case as Wills's last letter was dated 29 June. In it, he indicated he would probably last for four or five more days. i.e. till early July 1861, but it is unknown for how long he actually survived. Hence, no particular date can be ascribed to either man's death, except that it was no earlier than 29 June 1861." -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

G'Day again Jack, I can see the potential problem, but I think there are a variety of interpretations that people could place on the sentence rather than coming to the conclusion that it must be the 28 June. The sentence doesn't say most historians accept the date, and the sentence doesn't say it is the correct date, just that it is generally accepted to be the case. When the various municipal councils in Victoria and Devon erected memorials to Burke and Wills in 1862, they worked out their own interpretation of the dates of death. When the funeral was held the following year, the expedition's organizers felt obliged to set a date for their deaths, and as they thought it was appropriate that both men should have died on the same day they nominated the 28 June 1861. This has since been cited most frequently as the date of their deaths. I didn't edit any changes you made to the sentence, I just reversed an edit you made that asserted a certain date for the explorer's deaths. You could always edit the sentence, but if you do that please note that I never said that Wills' last letter was dated 29 June - I said it was written on the 29 June, but erroneously dated the 27 June. Rocketfrog (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

category:ABC radio programmes

Hi JackofOz - A page I've been able to contribute to, Argonauts Club, has been recategorised to Category:Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio programmes which is clearly anachronistic. The old Category:ABC radio programmes was useful as it spanned both incarnations, as did many of the programmes. Can you see a way around this? Doug butler (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

HI

Do you think removing some images from Napoleon II was a good move ? i am writing with a smile..

--Neogeolegend (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a hard question to answer. I removed one image, which was obviously a good idea because ... well, because I did it. :) I did not remove "some images", but such an action might well be justified in certain circumstances. Best wishes. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

original research/critiques in music articles, generally

Question removed to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music, retitled as 7 uncited critiques in music articles, q.v. Milkunderwood (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Requesting information about a chronological listing of Bach's works

hi Jack,

i apologize if this note is in the wrong place - i couldn't find any way to send you a message or email you.

i noticed you requested a chronological listing of Bach's works on the Talk Page belonging to Wikipedia's article that lists Bach's works, and i am writing to you ask whether you were able to find such a listing.

i have searched far and wide for a chronological listing of Bach's works with no luck. i am particularly interested in ascertaining the BWV numbers of Bach's earliest works - those at Ohrdruf, Luneberg, and Arnstadt (and perhaps a few years after, as well).

if you have any information along these lines, i would greatly appreciate your emailing me. my email address is: ngstevens@hotmail.com

many thanks, Nicholas Stevens — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngstevens2 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Nicholas, I've never tracked it down. Maybe nobody's ever done one because of the inherent dating issues, which is why it was so much easier to organise the BWV by genre. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Cecil Aronowitz

Thank you for Englishing one of my very first articles! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure, Gerda. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

A red-link for you

Hi again Jack! - Via Crucis (Liszt) - see Late works of Franz Liszt#Sacred music --Shirt58 (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Shirt. Just one of too many, I'm afraid. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Wagner (film)

Jack the parts played by Olivier, Gielgud and Richardson in the film Wagner by Tony Palmer were all authentic ministers of King Ludwig II. The names can be checked in any biography on Ludwig II in English or German. Pfistermeister was the Chief Minister of Ludwig II at the beginning of his reign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.109.108 (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Firstly, why the heck did you post this as a part of a completely unrelated thread from 4 months ago, up above?

Secondly, can you give me their full names or some further information about them? Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome Jack. Sorry about where the entry was inserted. My computer has delay sometimes and I thought it had ended where the entry was inserted. I saw the film many years ago in London at the Barbican Centre cinema on a wet and cold Sunday and it took up an entire day! There was one break for lunch. I bought the film on videotape back in Australia as it really has incredibly good performances of some of the greatest actors to grace the stage and screen and in particular the three great theatrical knights. I have noticed it has recently come out on dvd. Am away from my usual Library at another residence, but I am can assure you that all of the characters mentioned were real life figures. I have read about them both in English and in German and as a Ludwigophile have numerous books on Ludwig II where they are all mentioned. In fact Gielgud had an uncanny resemblence to Pfistermeister and the scene where he and Richardson are in the chapel for an investiture ceremony was actually filmed where it occurred inside the Munich Residenz. The scene with the three theatrical knights was filmed inside the Hofburg Palace in Vienna. I have been to all the castles featured in the film. It remains a great film. In fact some of it was even filmed in Bayreuth at the Festival Theatre. Palmer did enormous research. The actor playing Von Bulow actually looks like him as does Ronald Pickup as Nietsche. Will get back to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.109.108 (talk) 11:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I missed it on its original release but I bought the DVD recently and I'm slowly getting through it as other commitments permit. I'm not yet up to the scenes with these 3 gentlemen, but I look forward to it. Maybe this weekend. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Jack have just laid my hands on the on book I have here at present on Ludwig II ...

von Burg, Katerina. Ludwig II of Bavaria. (1989) ISBN 1-870417-02-X.

it must be your day! Okay one is Franz von Pfistermeister (Gielgud) , another Baron von Pforden Richardson). More to come. Baron von Perfall (Olivier) (talk)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.109.108 (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe these can help:

Franz Seraph von Pfistermeister,
Baron Karl Ludwig von der Pfordten,
Otto Bismarck: Gedanken und Erinnerungen, Cotta 1901, p. 454. "Bavarian Minister von Pfeuffer", probably this fellow: de:Sigmund von Pfeufer -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

That's excellent, thanks Michael. I've added the links to the article. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion still live

This is just a friendly note that the RDH discussion you participated at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2011_September_23#College_dating.3B_sociology.3B_hookups_vs_relationships is still live. You may also want to offer suggestions or take part in the discussions at the Talk:College dating. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)