User talk:JackofOz/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions with User:JackofOz. 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 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Thanks for tidying up my edits. That's what Wikipedia is about Chrisfromcanberra (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi JACK OF OZ.

Thanks for your offer of assistance. Would a copy of the album be a ref. I see your a reader of Wilde and a musician maybe I can send you a copy of the cd or perhaps send a link for you to download it. I have not released the album as I am developing a script for stage. If lack of public domain ref precludes mention on Wiki well then as they say in the Navy "rules is rules"!

Yours Sincerely

FeargaloFeargalo (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)5 th june 2009 ............d-day minus 1

Hi. No, it wouldn't be sufficient. Anyone can get a CD produced, but it's not notable until and unless an independent 3rd party writes something about it and publishes their commentary/critique in a reputable 3rd party publication. Even then, it may not pass our notability guidelines, but that would be the absolute minimum before we'd consider something as notable enough for inclusion in an article, or for an article of its own. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jack, Thankyou for your very thorough and sympathetic work cleaning up the text I wrote. You make me feel like a lazy b*****! (You may agree if you wish...) I have just looked through and you did a fine job. I ought to go through and stick in inline citations I suppose - cheers, Eebahgum (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC) PS In case you're wondering I was Dr Steven Plunkett in them days Eebahgum (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

On June 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Evelyn Scotney, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Giants27 21:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey. I've seen your many edits around and was wondering if you were interested in running for adminship. I'd gladly nominate you at WP:RFA if you're interested; let me know. Wizardman 00:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

And I would like to second that, though I think I may have asked you previously and you declined. Rockpocket 00:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

And from the peanut gallery comes . . . I'd be happpy to support you in this endeavour, but would think you entirely mad to do it. :-) Is a three-"p" "happpy" more ebullient than a two-"p" "happy"? // BL \\ (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks, Wizardman, Rock and Bielle. I've previously been asked to nominate for admin, and without getting too big-headed about it, I'd be surprised if I had any problem being accepted, particularly with the support you've already given me. However, I've always declined, and I think that will remain my position for the forseeable future. My interests are very wide ranging and I have difficulty getting my watchlist below 6,500 articles. I wouldn't want to add to that load by doing the things admins are regularly called on to do. I'd prefer to be of wiki-service in the way I have always been. But there's another reason. For the past 2½ years I've been in the fortunate position of being virtually a full-time Wikipedian (on many days, more than full-time), which has been great. However, that's shortly about to change. I'm certainly not going away, but my availability is about to become severely restricted, thanks to a job I've been offered, which is going to be full-on. So, it's just not practical for me to be an admin, even if I were disposed to nominate, which I'm not. But thanks anyway, I do appreciate the thought. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it must be a rather spectacular job to persuade you to leave the mega-salary and perks the comes with being an editor here! Congratulations on that, and - of course - should you change you mind at anytime in the future the offer will stand. Rockpocket 00:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing all that spectacular, really, but it will provide me with some money (Money? What's that?). The other thing is that my partner and I share a computer; while he's at work during the day, I have unrestricted access, and when he comes home, that's his time online (he's even worse than me in his way, but is not remotely a wikipedian). Unless we get a 2nd computer (not on the list of priorities right now), we're actually going to have to share online time - what an unusual concept, partners actually sharing things.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

View from the sidelines: some things in relationships are meant to be shared, like meals and beds and even possibly, cars. However, I would personally draw the line before I got to bathrooms or computers. If you have dial-up and only one phone line (something else I don't think we were meant to share), even having two computers wouldn't be sufficient. I wish you all the best in sorting out your new schedules. I'd be off at the local library and its cable Internet access as soon as the dinner dishes were done; my partner does the cooking. // BL \\ (talk) 01:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Dial up? - hack, spit!! No, we're on broadband, so that should't be a prob. By bathrooms, do you mean rooms with a bath/shower, or do you mean "bathrooms"? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I mean both or either. There goes that "divided by a common language" again. In my house, except for one, all the equipment is in each bathroom. We even have a few spares lying about for the use of the odd travelling saleman (even ones needn't apply). // BL \\ (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I read about Uchida's recent damehood, but it seems she is only a resident in London and not a British citizen or national. In that case her damehood would be honorary, not substantive. If that's the case, as I suspect, the category she would belong in would be Category:Honorary Dames Commander of the Order of the British Empire, not the other. Please drop me a line on my talkpage if you find out definitively one way or the other, Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly the same thought occurred to me, I must admit. However, there are many ghits now for “Mitsuko Uchida made a Dame of the Order of the British Empire”, and “Congratulations, Dame Mitsuko”, etc etc. No mention anywhere of it being honorary, and I have searched. The official list of honours does not seem to be available yet, and that would be the definitive source.

However, I note that when she got her CBE in 2000, it was honorary because she was still a citizen of Japan – see [1]. I’ve searched for any evidence she has acquired British citizenship in the meantime, but no luck. But there’s nothing to say she hasn’t, either. It’s quite possible she did but it never made the news. At this stage, given that a number of UK newspapers have made no mention of the DBE being honorary, I’d prefer to believe it’s substantive. At the end of the day, that's all we at Wikipedia can do. It's been reported in reputable sources, and in the absence of anything definitive either way about her current citizenship, we must assume it's been correctly reported. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello. You could ask GuillaumeTell about Uchida. I think he will know. Regarding your query here please see the CM guideline. We've long had a good consensus on not using them. Regards. --Kleinzach 00:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's been resolved now. She was in the London Gazette's list of 2009 DBEs, with nothing about it being an honorary award. I've amended the article already. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Jack just be careful editing this page as it is currently before admin over a number of issues okay? Finneganw 22:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope your fine! Just come here to say hello. I like to see music-lovers in wikipedia, such as me. My current translation work is all the symphonies by Haydn. You can check to progress at my Spanish user page if you wish. Cheers! OboeCrack (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Posted here also, for your benefit. :-)) Ana Clio the Muse (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, dear, dear, Jack! They seek her here, they seek her there, those Wikipedians seek her everywhere; is she in heaven, is she in hell, that damned elusive Clio.  :-) Actually, no, she's on Blogger under her own identity! Oh, I'm a shameless self-promoter, but then I always was! Drop in sometime, my dear friend, if you want. It's anatheimp.blogspot.com I started this in April, though I've been part of a team blog with Retarius, a countryman of yours, since last year. Check out Retarius and Anastasia for my remarks on Gordon Ramsay in Oz! Lots of love, Ana, the artist formerly known as Clio the Muse (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring (and reliably sourced) contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jack! I must have missed some point, but from looking at the article on the piece that was my conclusion. If not for the reason I gave, why is it called 'Roma'? Best. RashersTierney (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, RT. Well, if you read it, you'll see that he originally intended each movement to depict a different city - Rome, Venice, Florence and Naples - so it was never supposed to be totally about Rome. Secondly, he only got the idea of writing such a work after he had left Rome in July 1860, so your theory that he wrote it, or started it, while studying in Rome, is contradicted by the sources. This idea only occurred to him in Rimini, while he was touring around Italy, after leaving Rome, on his way back to Paris.

In my research for the article, I could find nothing about exactly when the title changed, or who changed it. As far as I can tell, its original title was simply "Symphony (in C)", or maybe Bizet was not concerned with giving it a formal title until such time as it was published, which did not happen in his lifetime. He seemed chronically unsure of just exactly what he wanted to say in this work, and/or how best to say it, which is why he kept on revising it and revising it, finally more or less abandoning it in 1871. Maybe he always intended to come back to it, but death intervened. The fact that he was never happy with it is probably why it's often called "unfinished" (see Talk:Unfinished symphony)- but I've argued that it could be considered "unfinished" only so far as Bizet's intentions (whatever they were) were concerned, but it's certainly not unfinished as far as the manuscript is concerned. This is no different from Grieg and his Piano Concerto in A minor. What we hear these days is not the work as originally written. Grieg made a number of revisions over many years, amounting to over 300 changes, and it's only the latest version that we know as the "Grieg Piano Concerto". Had he lived longer, he would probably have continued to refine it from time to time, so in that sense, it could also be called "unfinished" - but it never is. Back to Bizet: as far as I can tell, the epithet "Roma" seems to have been created for its publication in 1880, five years after his death. By whom, who knows. Probably the publisher. But much of this is speculation, so I won't be putting it into the article.

The one thing I'm certain of is that "Roma" Symphony (Bizet) was most definitely not written in Rome. No part of it was ever written in Rome. If you can find sources that say otherwise, I'd love to see them. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for comprehensive reply. My only reason for putting addition was to show that the 'Roma' referred to was the Italian city and not another understanding of the term, Would something general like "in reference to the city of Rome", or similar wording be acceptable? Initially I thought there might be a Romani connection. Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. OK, I see where you're coming from. "In reference to the city of Rome" is certainly closer to the mark than what was there before. I've got no problems with that. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Great. Such a pleasure when eds. collaborate as intended. Regards. RashersTierney (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well that was a nice lesson you out up on SteveBaker's talk page - Thanks for teaching me something i didn't know. :-) Rkr1991 (talk) 06:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You're welcome. (I was tempted to write "Your welcome", but that would have been tempting fate.)  :) Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Category intersection illustrates the function with the example "suspension bridges in New York City". A long time ago, I tried that link and found a search results page listing seven links, each to a Wikipedia article about a suspension bridge in New York City. When I tried it today, it was not working. Apparently, it is less developed today than it was before. (You might want to watchlist or bookmark it for possible use in the future.) However, at the top of WP:CI there is a link to Wikipedia:CatScan, which has a link to an external program. I tried that program today, but without success. You might have better results. I apologize for any disappointments.
-- Wavelength (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, but tks anyway. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Knut isn't even an anagram.174.3.103.39 (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

By George, I have no problem with fixing the number of days. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What embaresses me, is that I should've caught on to the boo-boo, when you said 1752 was when the Julian/Gregorian calender change occured (George II, reigned 1727-60). GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

On June 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vaterländischer Künstlerverein, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 02:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I was researching Jeanne Eagels, and I got you mixed up with another editor from the article about where she was born.

My apologies, Stutzey

Sorry to have done a very minor edit to your page (and possibly bruising your ego?) - Isn't editing what Wikipedia is all about, anyway? Seems the pages you create have an extra set of rules you've come up with.

Again, I apologize to have "stepped on your toes", Jack :) —Preceding unsigned comment added 05:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Roger. When the penny dropped and I understood what "your page" referred to, I was in a position to respond. I may have created Diana Gould (dancer) and may have made more edits than any other editor – so far – but that won't always be the case. I certainly do not have any ownership of the article.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)# Linking and autoformatting of dates tells us that years and dates should not be linked unless there's a particularly good reason to do so. A subject's dates of birth and death do not constitute such a reason. So it's Wikipedia's rules I applied in this edit, not any "extra set of rules I've come up with". My ego has not bruised, and my toes are in great shape, but thanks for your solicitation. Please feel free to improve the article, and any others I've created, any way you can. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Been there, read that already. It seems to be a matter of interpetation because it does not clearly state the formatting of dates concerning births and deaths is unlawful (since many notable deaths articles across wikipedia do have linked birth and death dates). My impression was since you are the author, you feel your "work" was wrongfully edited. Heck, there's only a problem when it's the creator who has a problem with something changed on "their" article. The way I had interpret the MOS, dates of birth and deaths ARE a good reason to be linked since they are directed to a page of others who had died on this date, events that happened in the year (eg July 1 or 1985). I believe that the spirit of the MOS meant within the scope of the article since it would be tedious to link ALL the dates within.

But with that said, I digress (so many rules, so little time to sit here and figure them out - it feels like reading a legal contract and the language has become too lobotomizing (like dealing with the Internal Revenue Service!))- Isn't wikipedia suppose to be enjoyable? Today, I have noticed that since the start of 2005, the format of the page listing individuals has changed to include a day that is linked. After using wiki for many years, I did not know this.

Go forth and conquer! 15:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

In "Year linking", we're told "Year articles (1795, 1955, 2007) should not be linked unless they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter—that is, the events in the year article should share an important connection other than merely that they occurred in the same year. ... the years of birth and death of architect Philip C. Johnson should not be linked, because little, if any, of the contents of 1906 and 2005 are germane to either Johnson or to architecture."

I apply exactly the same reasoning to month-day articles. I know this has not met with universal agreement, but it has met with a strong consensus. That the article happened to be created by me was neither here nor there; I would have reverted your edit no matter who created the article. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification of your interpetation and tips - even though it seems the language and scope of the ever cumbersome and indepth "rules" of Wikipedia can be seen in both ways. As time goes on, things change and so does the general consensus in forums like these - always have and always will; it is very evident in the history of Wikipedia. Will keep in mind of what I have learned as I go forward. 03:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jack,

You've been mentioned at this section of the administrators' noticeboard, about the cut-and-paste move you made to Sims Reeves. Cut and paste moves are a *really* bad thing because they destroy the edit attribution. If you can't make a page move yourself, the proper place to get help is through requested moves, or you can ask me since I'm an admin. I've done a history merge on Reeves' article so that all the edits are in one place. Graham87 09:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Graham. Sorry for the travail of woe I've subjected the project to. Don't know what came over me there. Best thing I can say is "It seemed like a good idea at the time". I've been telling my fawning admirers for years that I'm not actually perfect, and now we finally have what looks like hard evidence.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jack. I was going to offer to nominate you for adminship but I see above that this has been suggested before and you've declined. I don't want to hassle you about it, but if you ever change your mind, I'd be very happy to nominate you. It needn't change your wiki habits and you could just carry on as you are, the only difference would be that you'd be able to do things yourself when you need to instead of asking someone else. Personally, I don't do a lot of adminy stuff myself but the tools are very handy on my travels and it's nice to be able to do things myself when I find something that needs to be done. Sarah 00:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Sarah. Thanks indeed. I saw your comment here, and I have to say I agree with you. It would be nice to be able to tweak certain things that are currently untweakable (by me). But the question is: is it worth going thru the process of nomination? I've concentrated so much on adding and discussing content and answering Ref Desk queries, and kept so far away from anything to do with admins and how they get that way, that I'm still only vaguely aware of the process. (Btw, I've been around since 8 December 2003, not yet 6 years, but let's not quibble.) If I could restrict my new-found powers to simply doing things I currently can't do, on articles of interest to me, that would be fine. Is there some expectation that admins will do more than this, or can they play it any way that suits them? I fear I'd be approached for assistance by all manner of users, and would feel duty bound to help where I can. I myself have called for admin help from time to time, and it would be churlish of me to turn around and say "Sorry, ask someone else" or words to that effect. There's still the time issue I mentioned above, and it may be the case that approaches to me for admin help might not get answered at all for a few days; in that scenario, I feel it would be better if I was out of the picture entirely, and people needing help approached someone who was actually available.

Convince me my fears are unfounded, and I might yet consider it. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I do - a lot of my work is in and around WP Australia, and I rarely involve myself in other tasks. Obviously the RfA process will focus a bit on whether you *can do* (i.e. are capable of competently doing) those tasks, but that's more because having the tools gives you the capacity to do so. Most useful tools are being able to speedy sheer crap and do move-over-redirect and history merges, as well as block obvious IP/SPA vandals on pages on my watchlist. Orderinchaos 01:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You could always put a note at the top of the page pointing people to the noticeboards for assistance if you didn't want to have to worry about people coming to your page to ask you to do things for them. I've seen other administrators do that. Same thing if you're going to be busy for a few days, just put a note saying you're busy and not available (or whatever). I find that most people are actually okay about you not taking action yourself if you can give them some advice and point them in the right direction for getting help. So I don't think you should feel obliged to do anything more than what you're comfortable doing. Maybe just have a think about it and if you decide you'd like to take the leap I'd be very happy to write a nomination for you (as I'm sure are many others!). Cheers, Sarah 02:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(Agreeing with the advice above) We're volunteers, it's not a paid job. I've been on wikibreak of some form or another for most of the time I've been an admin (over 2 years!) due to my studies and noone's ever complained about it. For the last 6 months that's been even stricter than usual. I've still responded however to simple requests for uncontroversial action at my talk page, like certain types of page undeletions, semi-protection/vandal blocks etc. Orderinchaos 05:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia adminship contains pages about being a Wikipedia administrator. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to know what the answer to that is - in which case what is it and how did you work it out - without laboriously adding them up? -- JackofOz (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Trovatore" didn't really state his answer except for its bottom line number. Here's the rest: The average of the ten digits 0 through 9 is

(0 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9)/10 = 45/10 = 4.5.

That's Trovatore's answer.

That's approximately correct if the ten digits occur equally frequently in the long run. But here's a hard question: Do the ten digits really occur equally frequently?

For that we have only statistical evidence, not a mathematical proof.

In one sense, the answer is clearly "no": if the sum is 4500057062 instead of 4500000000 (i.e. 4.5 billion) then it deviates slightly from exact equality. But it is conjectured that you can get as close as you want to equality of those ten frequencies by making the number of digits big enough.

If you want to get into statistical evidence, then we'd also talk about pairs of consecutive digits, and triples of consecutive digits, and so on. The number cited above, 4500057062, does not deviate from 4.5 billion by more than would be predicted by the full-fledged conjecture dealing with pairs, triples, etc. occurring equally frequently. One could get into details of how that conclusion was reached as well.

But the way Trovatore came up with 4.5 is just that it's the average of the ten digits 0 through 9. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I see. I assumed 4.5 was the answer to the question I posed. I didn't twig that it was also the average of 1 through 10. Tricky Trovatore. Based on what you say, it's going to be very close to 4.5, but probably not exactly the same. The reason I chose 1 billion digits was that I was assuming/hoping there was a method of getting an average of an arbitrarily high number of them, that didn't involve just adding them up and dividing by the number of digits. But apparently there's not. Thanks for the info. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi,
I see you changed Eugène into Eugene a while back. Good!
But do you understand the "Aynsley" part?
I don't have a lot of Goossens LPs, but the ones I do have call him plain "Eugene Goossens".
The first time I heard "Aynsley" was 5 minutes ago. I've had Goossens records since the 1970s.
Aynsley, to me, sounds like a mistake.
Any opinion?

Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. If you search for Eugène Goossens or Eugene Goossens, you'll get the disambiguation page that lists Sir Eugene, his father Eugène Goossens, fils, and his grandfather Eugène Goossens, père. The first two were spelt Eugène, but our guy was Eugene. This slight variation in the spelling is not enough to disambiguate them, however. They were all conductors, so we can't use that either. The only thing we really have to use is Sir Eugene's middle name, Aynsley. That is my understanding of why we list him as Eugene Aynsley Goossens. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ja-Z,
Slightly off-topic, but...

Camille Saint-Saëns
Was wracked with pains,
When people addressed him,
As Saint Sanes.

http://www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/RZ/lehre/C++/4/carnival
Only 3 GHits for Ogden Nash's verse for Carnival of the Animals, and this was the only one that had the whole thing. "O tempura, o morays", as Cicero said when he discovered that the deep-fryer was out of order at his favourite Japanese restaurant and they were all out of anago.
I grew up listening to now probably vanished vinyl record, Saint-Saëns on side one, William Walton on side two. First side was Noël Coward reading Nash's verse for Carnival, and second side was Dame Sitwell herself reading Façade on the other.

Completely off-topic, but...
I do think there should be an article Labor Party Split. An imago of the article may be found here. What do you think?
--Shirt58 (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Shirt (may I call you Shirt for short). I've never owned that LP of the Coward/Ogden/Saint-Saëns, but I do have a taped recording of it and give it a hearing now and then, usually whenever I have breakfast with beasts. I was having a few wry chuckles at your message, until - horror of horrors! - I saw a reference to "Dame Sitwell". My new-found respect for you instantly vanished.  :) But I got over it quickly. Don't have time to read the Split imago right now. I'm surprised, though, that we don't have something on that already. I'll get back to you soon. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for intruding here--I'm en route to the bottom of the page to pose an unrelated question, and this has caught my eye--but I thought it worth mentioning that the conductor of the Noel Coward recording, Andre Kostelanetz, commissioned the Nash verses in the first place. (He doesn't get the credit he probably deserves for commissioning LOTS of stuff, like Hovhaness's "And God Created Great Whales"; mind you, that still doesn't make him one of my favorite conductors.) To be honest, my favorite "with incidental poems" account is Arthur Fiedler's Boston Pops "Living Stereo" RCA recording with Hugh Downs, probably because that's the one with which I fell in love as a child, probably at first because of the nifty cover art. I just about wore the grooves of our local library's copy through to the other side.

Oh, and let us not forget the way Michael Flanders put it: "O Tempora, o Mores--Oh, Times, oh Daily Mirror!" Drhoehl (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to say thanks for bringing the S-S C C page to AfD -- I learned a lot about the process as well (definitely more fun with classical music AfDs than others I've participated in). All the best, -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What is your preference for the format of date ranges? I realise that I haven't been paying attention and now see that the page uses three formats: 1) yyyy-zz; 2) yyyy-zzzz; 3) (yyyy-zzzz). I think I should be consistent with the rest of the page - which format do you prefer that I use? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Pdf. I prefer the unbracketed yyyy-zz (Prime Minister 1975-83), except, of course, where the dates span 2 centuries (Chairman 1995-2003). We also sometimes see 1984-5, which is concise and unambiguous, but somehow I just dislike it. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

CONGRATULATIONS !!! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been shortening this article to try to tighten it and am torn at this point between leaving information that may been seen as irrelevant, especially regarding Rictor Norton and the "court of honor" theory, and the possibility of taking out too much. What is your impression of the article at this point? Thanks very much in advance for your input. Jonyungk (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

ADR: Advanced Dungeons & Rabbits, a Role Playing Game for phpBB ?? (Probably not ... )
Alternative dispute resolution Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As a proponent of maintaining the separate "recorded pianists" list, I try to help keep it in alignment with the general one. I'll confess to having been less than diligent about that in recent months (life does sometimes intrude, alas), but I still have been trying to do spot checks, and today I see that someone editing from an IP address added Farhad Badalbeyli to the general list only. Never heard of him, so I did a quick Google search and found that (a) yes, he does exist and even has an apparently rather distinguished career in Azerbaijan, and (b) he has at least one CD set to his credit, one presenting some really unusual repertoire to boot. That raises the question of whether he belongs on "recorded pianists": on the one hand, the CDs have received a review by Rob Barnett on MusicWeb, a reasonably established and respectable outlet; on the other, the set apparently collects concert tapings of variable quality and derivation on a label named after the pianist, suggesting a self-production, and as a working principle pending discussion that has never been forthcoming I've been taking the line that self-produced CDs, YouTube clips, .mp3 downloads, and the like don't "count" for inclusion, at least unless distributed through established channels. Given that you, too, are extensively involved in maintaining the lists, I wanted to get your thoughts on the subject. So: any comments? Thanks for your insights. (If you want to add him to recorded yourself, by the way, feel free; I'm ambivalent and wouldn't argue either way at this point.) Drhoehl (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent edits on the article. The present version is better, but still lacks proper sources. Do you have material about Donohoe? Cheers --Karljoos (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As a frequent editor of the page Francis de Groot you may wish to know that I have tagged it as a copyright violation. The content of the article appears to have been copied from William Publishing Co - Francis de Groot. If you believe this to be incorrect feel free to remove the tag or improve the page. Ozdaren (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about playing the nationality card, but by that time I was pretty annoyed. The Decline comment was, "Darwin NT is as or more notable than Charles Darwin". Then I go to his page and he has a big notice up that he is on vacation, so it's like, "Decline, but you have no recourse, because I am off on holiday to Perth" (he literally had that on his talk page, that he was going on vacation there). :) Thanks for understanding. Anarchangel (talk) 06:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hear hear (re you comments on the refdesk). Have you heard about the case of the NZ woman who got fired for HER EMAILS TO HER COLLEAGUES? BBC story. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added some additional info to last weekend's WT:RD thread and raised the question of whether it's time to suspend PCG's ref desk privileges. As you'd commented in the thread, I specifically want to invite your input. — Lomn 18:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Just run across your article. Immensely impressed. I had opened Reed's DNB article by mistake (looking for someone else's) and, as a dyed-in-the-wool Elgarian, I thought perhaps a WP article, if there was one, might be improved with additions from the DNB. The truth, I find, is the other way round. Tim riley (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Why, thank you, Tim. Glad you found it useful. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure about the factual basis for "least troll-like", [2] but I do thank you for the kind thought and the support. When I first saw the comment, I ambled to check in the mirror. // BL \\ (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jack,

Just thought I would pop a note here to say that I thoroughly enjoy reading your answers and occasional questions on the Language Reference desk, and that I feel that you have been much maligned concerning your recent enquiry. I hope that my comment about the Internet did not make you feel that I was disparaging you or your question in any way - I was just adding in my opinion that the Internet (and I should have included SMS messages as well) contribute to the general misuse of English that we encounter on a daily basis.

I actually got quite a lot out of the discussion—the links given led me to some quite hysterical posts on the Language log website and found some utter gems there. One, on [chanter en yaourt] had me in absolute stitches, as well as the previous post on yaourter with the delicious:

Prenez une poignée de bons amis, de préférence des amis aimant chanter, chantonner, fredonner ou même yaourter. Et qui n’ont pas spécialement peur, les liquides houblonnés aidant, de se cramer la honte dans des bars où ils sont pourtant connus. Mettez leur entre les pattes une petite boite carrée pleine de cartes, nommée Shabadabada, et laissez agir quelques heures. Observez le résultat : il semblerait qu’ils alternent des phases de faisage de gueule et d’autres de franche rigolade.

(translation available upon request - it's sublime French prose to savour)

Now, if only I could work out how those wretched barnstar thingies work for all the hard work and dedication at the Reference desks...

Regards,

-- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, AD. Every once in a while, I wonder why I bother with the Ref Desk. The tone of some responses was decidedly negative, even antagonistic, which, for one such as I, who requires sweetness and pleasantness in all things, even when I'm being disagreed with, which is absolutely ok in itself, leaves a very unwelcome bitter taste. Your support, though, is very welcome. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi JackofOz/Archive 12! An article you have been involved with has been tagged as being in need of further sources to avoid being deleted. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:Double-barrelled name.

I've been doing an extensive revision of the Ervin Nyíregyházi article. I see you've been to the page as well and I welcome your input. I seem to be having a problem with the references section, which keeps showing the complete information for my primary reference. Any suggestions?THD3 (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jack, it's interesting that the word used here in times past seemed to be used almost exclusively in the context of "Old Melburnians" as evidenced here [3]. I'm not sure at what point it jumped the shark and became the dominant denonym. Of course this is all complete OR on my part. Melburnian (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! (I think even the Solti page here had the mistaken information about the Haydn until recently. And interesting page, opera premieres!) Sorry to hear about his recent death, too. Schissel | Sound the Note! 02:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC) (Edit: Erm, Dorati, not Solti. It's late of the day. :) )

Cheers. Amazing what one finds when one goes digging. To think that the conductor of the Berlin premiere of Parsifal has only just died - astonishing! -- JackofOz (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your truly sensible and relevant response, that provokes a reflection upon the democratic nature of English-language usage. Again we find that the descriptive trumps (thumps? thrashes?) the prescriptive (whatsoe'er it may be). Seems I was patently counting on the latter... and the non-findings are one of several good reasons I've never become an English teacher abroad. Otherwise, Herzegovina is the test case I failed to come up with (up with which I failed to come?) on my own, and your results are sufficiently convincing. Thanks for pitching in! -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, heh - up with which I failed to come. Winston would have been proud of you, Deborah. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for the heads-up, Jack. I continued the discussion with User:Hoary at his talk page; give it a look, if you so mind. Take care.Rhinoracer (talk) 09:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)