User talk:JackofOz/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

AC

And slowly but steadily progress is achieved ... Good work. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov

Thought you'd like to know that I nominated this article for featured article of the day for March 18, which is Rimsky-Korsakov's birthday. If you would like to put in a vote to either support or oppose this request, please feel free to do so. Thanks very much. Jonyungk (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Firenze

Hey, Jack:

How about Florence in September? Bielle (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

List of historical opera characters

Hi, I saw this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. I think you'd could get some helpful input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera (not all the members there are active on CM). You might want to think about cross-posting there. Interesting and potentially very useful list, by the way! I haven't had time to check it fully, but you might want to look at List of operas set in the Crusades to see if there are any historical figures from there you could add. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've let them know too. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for cleaning up "The opera corpus" and your attempt to get this wonderful list on main page! II'm sure that the addressed problems could be solved if you get a few more general words in the lead - as lists don't count. I got one DYK saved for Bach's birthday on Sunday, - after a long discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, Gerda. It occurred to me out of the blue less than 2 weeks ago, and I now wonder why I - or anyone - never thought of it before now. Or if they did, why they never made a start on it. My only regret, if that's the right word, is that I may have been too obsessively thorough and have consequently left little opportunity for others to contribute to it. But maybe I'll feel differently in 12 months time when it'll be twice as long as it is now. I'm not too fussed about the DYK, and I'm certainly not going to be sourcing separate cites for every entry, or any entries for that matter. Can't wait to see what you have in store for Herr Bach on 21 March. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

BachBirthday if you want a preview, it's two of them now. - Your DYK: if I was you I would expand the lead a bit with citable things and use those in a hook. No need to cite the list entries as far as I understand. You can't do that in 12 months - but now, with rather little effort, right? - Do you think Gianni Schicchi would qualify, being mentioned in Dante's Inferno? Or is that too bible-like, smile? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As I noticed only now: the one adding the opera Émilie missed Opera corpus: here you have a brand new historical figure, well sourced in all the papers, a friend of Voltaire ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If you'll pardon my French...

Bon soir, Jacques d'Oz
Great outcome at the Ref Desk/Language! What I remembered my year 8 Italian teacher saying turned out to be not what she actually said. She also told us that "Va, pensiero" was Italy's unofficial national anthem, and how "Verdi" was used during the Risorgimento as code for "Vittorio Emanuele, Re d'Italia". But this time, I have a source, no less than the Artistic Director of OA:

My favourite story about an artist and art really relates to the 1842 premiere of Verdi's opera Nabucco in Milan when, after the premiere, people were running through the streets with placards that had two simple words on them, 'Viva Verdi', and obviously they were celebrating the success of Verdi's opera the night before at La Scala, but also those two words meant 'Viva Vittorio Emanuele Re D'Italia', .
The Arterati: Lyndon Terracini

This is somewhat at odds with what is in the article:

However, much of modern scholarship has refuted this concept and it fails to see connections between Verdi's 1840s and 1850s operas and Italian nationalism...

If you'll pardon my French, I would argue that this assertion is a whole lot of bull.
Doubtless there are many more sources out there that would confirm this, but I'll leave that for you. I wouldn't want to edit an article in subject areas I know completely nothing about.
--Shirt58 (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Editing articles in subject areas I know next to nothing about is, of course, a completely different matter...

misc.

At the risk of saying too much, did you edit logged out? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I sometimes edit anonymously from work, but I don't know to what you're specifically referring. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

An IP changed "appelation" to "appellation". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was me (or I). It looked OK at home, but only at work did I notice my grievous error. Was there some issue you wanted to discuss? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're not concerned about your IP being known, then it's no problem. And you can delete this section if you want. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I might finish up doing that, but it'd be the first time I've ever done so. Why would I be concerned about my IP being "known"? I have sometimes identified myself when I post anonymously, and anyone can peruse that IP's history and see whatever they want to see. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you've made no secret of being Australian, the fact your IP geolocates to Australia is no surprise. But some folks don't want too much information about their location known. (Particularly, to minimize the chance of real-life harassment, which does occur here from time to time.) And identifying yourself while logged out is commendable, and something that if IP-hoppers would do, I wouldn't find myself embroiled in one megillah after another on the ref desk talk page. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I know next to nothing about such matters, but is it even possible to somehow "disguise" the location of an IP? Could I make mine appear to be located in Bolivia, for example?

At the risk of rambling incompetently, may I make an observation, Bugsy? You seem to have a love-hate relationship with IPs. For those that are known to you, you go to some lengths to help them protect their identity, as per above. But you treat the vast majority of them with not much short of contempt, almost a "guilty till proven innocent" thing. On the one hand, it's commendable that I identify myself as JackofOz when I post logged out from work, but on the other hand, you're suggesting I delete this whole thread in order to disguise the connection between my work IP address (which we haven't even mentioned here) and my location. Do you see just a teensy disconjunct there? The truth is usually not found at either or any of the extremes, but somewhere in the middle. If anything, your raising this issue here can only have the effect of further disseminating the connection between that IP address and my identity. That's not an issue for me, but it seems to fly straight in the face of the concerns you yourself have raised. If this was the serious issue you claim, why not approach me privately by email rather than potentially alerting hundreds or even thousands of others about it.

Nobody could fail to notice your crusades on the Ref desk talk pages about anonymous IPs. I'd rather you kept your tirades there, if anywhere, rather than involving me in the "problem". If I have anything to contribute, I'll do so there.

You make it sound as if they are forcing you to get involved in these issues. You have a choice, just as Joe McCarthy did. Less really is more sometimes. And that applies to not always having to have the final say in a thread, and not always having to drag out some Marx Brothers quip or clip or some other witty remark. It very often ill matches the tone of the thread. Others have said similar things to you, but with no great lasting results. I live in hope.

Good night, and good luck. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No one is forcing me to do anything. I choose to point out when an IP acts like a drive-by. I refuse to play the "look what you made me do" game that often turns up on wikipedia. I raised this question to you about your IP as a courtesy, because many editors don't really want their IP's known. I was coy about it in the beginning. I could have used e-mail, but I don't send e-mails to anyone here except a few trusted admins. So I apologize for bringing this up, and you can request it be zapped from view if you want. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologise, pal. Really. Because however misguided I think your point is, I acknowledge your good intentions. But I have nothing to hide, nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to be paranoid about, and my life is an open book. There will be no zapping. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Vile personal attacks on you

Hello, anonymous IP here just passing through. I think you should refer HalfShadow to admin for these edits: [1] [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.109.244 (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If personal abuse is the best he/she can come up with as a way of responding to my comments, then I'd almost rather not give it any acknowledgement whatsoever. Let's wait and see. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Your Opinion is requested

As an occasional editor of various Shakespeare authorship articles, your opinion is requested here [[3]]. Smatprt (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

List of historical opera characters, redux

I didn't see anything on the talk page about this, but what about operas for which there are no articles - would you consider incorporating those into the list if the characters in question have articles? If so, several operas come to mind...

Regardless, it's an excellent list. I have at least one more to incorporate, which I'll try to do later tonight. (Robert Ward's The Crucible - that's fertile ground indeed. :-) ) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If you have more details to add, please be my guest. I've now added just such an invitation to the article itself. There are already a couple of red links and unlinked entries and I'm sure there could be quite a lot more. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, you're gonna hate me, then. I can think of a lot of operas that don't have articles, but whose characters would fit on the list. I'll just have to root around a bit in my father's LP collection to get some of that information... :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Au contraire, mio drug (to mix my languages). I never for a moment believed my first cut was the last word in completeness; it was very thorough in respect of the articles we currently have articles on, that's all. And our coverage is very good indeed, but still far from complete. I'd love to see some more interesting names pop up. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 17:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

The Merry Widow

Hi. Check out the discussion at The Merry Widow's talk page. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Claudio Arrau article

I just edited the Claudio Arrau discussion. Not the article. I follow your entries on reference desk. I am awkward using Wikipedia protocols. Did you know that James Conlon the conductor grew up in Douglaston also??? How do I get a proper Wikipedia name so my IP doesn't show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sesquepedalia (talk • contribs) 14:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't count on User:AVM being gone for very long. His edit history indicates he's "taken his toys and gone home" before, only to return later. Just like User:Fanoftheworld. Tsk, tsk, tsk.THD3 (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Naming of the Bach Passions

Would you be interested in commenting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#St. John Passion? Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 06:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Imprimatur. Any idea where to go to get a Nihil obstat for the proposal? :P --Jubilee♫clipman 08:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Why yes. Just ask my father, Pope Oscar Rufus I "The Recalcitrant".  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks for the comments, though. I wasn't quoing policy (there is no such policy, AFAIK), I was going by the norm. Anyway, no problem as the moves are under way, now. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 21:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW

Not that I condone them or anything, but I believe both of these edits were 50% tongue-in-cheek. I find myself hoping that your outraged reply was, in turn, at least somewhat mock. Don't take the guy seriously -- he certainly doesn't, and I don't think he deserves to be. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to know with Bugs, Steve. Even when the content of a post seems to indicate he's unhappy, he'll usually conclude with a smiley. This doesn't gel, not for me. But this lack of authenticity is not that surprising. Endless joking often masks a deeply troubled person. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Baroque vs Popular Rock

Does this new article make any sense to you? I have no formal background in music, but it reads like someone's personal theory or a paper for a course. If this is outside your field, could you suggest who else I might get to take a look? Thanks. Bielle (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Dr. K has prodded it. Sorry to have disturbed the serenity of your page. :-) Bielle (talk) 05:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, dear lady. I come here to escape the crazy goings on elsewhere, and to rejuvenate my soul.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I prod2ed it. FYI, the folks at WP:WikiProject Music and those at WP:WikiProject Classical music would probably be the best to ask in future. (As well as Jack, I mean!) --Jubilee♫clipman 08:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Jubilee. And, Jack, are you rejuvenated yet? I can't see any change in your photo. Bielle (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

My photo continues on, Dorian Grey-like, forever unchanged, while the real Jack is buffeted into one or more of the sixty six senselessnesses by the sylph-like siroccos, myriad mistrals, not to mention foul zephyrs, that come his way from all directions whither and yon. Winds of change - hah! You've never had it so good.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Elvis Presley - singer or musician?

May I ask you to have a look at Talk:Elvis Presley. I am not happy with the discussion there, as users DocKino and Andy Walsh claim that there is a consensus in favor of "musician". I would prefer this version:

Elvis Aaron (or Aron^a) Presley (January 8, 1935 – August 16, 1977) was one of the most popular American singers of the 20th century. He also played rhythm guitar and acted in several musical-comedies."

To my mind, this may be the most accurate version of the lead. What do you think? Onefortyone (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing

Seeing your helpful amendments to the Adrian Boult article (to which, by the way, I have today added a link to the W H Reed article that you wrote last year) I wonder if you ever do peer reviews? I have put the Boult article up for peer review, and if you feel moved to comment it would be gratefully received. - Tim riley (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Tim.

Peer reviews? No, not as such. I get my jollies from just writing and editing articles to the best I can make them. WP may have an article on everything, but paradoxically there are still so many significant gaps in our coverage of major subjects, and that's where my work lies. Whether articles ever get peer reviewed, or make it to GA/FA or whatever, is not really my area of concern or interest. Call me a loner working on a collaborative project.

On the other hand, whenever I notice any error at all, I tend to do an edit of the whole article and catch whatever I can while I'm there. Hence my recent edits to Adrian Boult. But since you've been so kind to me, I will monitor the peer review and help where I can. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You are very kind. Greatly appreciated. - Tim riley (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Bizet Symphony in C

Hi Jack, thanks for your tweaks. I am thinking of taking this over to FAC when I have finished it - I still have a bunch of stuff on the posthumous revival & critical reception to write in, plush threshing out a description of the movements. But if you could give what I have managed to set down already a critical once-over with FA in mind and let me know if there are any major problems that would be great, esp. as we need more FAs for classical compositions. Many thanks, Eusebeus (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Zara Bate Doll house

Good work on removing that pic, it was completely useless. Obviously you have been editing the PM's Spouses articles for quite some time, you would know of how hard it was to find one pic of Zara, but Bettina Gorton's pic was the real prize in my opinion! The only problem I would like to raise with you is, they all meet copyright technically, but both of the images in Zara Bate's article are almost certainly wrong, the blonde die in Zara's hair came along when Holt became PM in the 60's. What Im getting at is are they a violation of copyright rules if there owner states that they were taken years previous to when they actually where? Wikistar (Place order here) 10:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

These are questions I cannot answer, sorry. I'm a complete beginner when it comes to copyright issues. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Imogen Holst

Hi, Jack. I'm a bit surprised to see you adding some new information without any sources. I know the article is generally lacking references, but at least we can make sure that any new information we add is referenced. --ColinFine (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I consider myself suitably chastised. Cite added. Thanks for the reminder, Colin. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Variations

Thank you for Variations on a Theme of Frank Bridge! One of my last ones were also variations, Gestural Variations, that I had the great pleasure to hear in concert yesterday. If you like them you might want to approve my DYK nomination, smile, and nominate yours please, I would like to see one or the other 20th century composition on the Main page between all the battle ships, pagodas and mushrooms. We had Polish Requiem, sadly suitable, one of the movements dedicated to the victims of Katyn. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Synchronicity

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

Morag Beaton's page

I have added back the important information you had removed, including relevant pictures. Hands off! Touch at your own peril! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstroh (talk • contribs) 02:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• The "important information" you refer to was already there, and you've now succeeded in duplicating it. I've removed it again.

• There still are too many photos. Seven photos, taking up almost as much space as the text, is a perfect example of lack of balance. The idea is not to include as many photos as you can possibly find that happen to show the subject. What, for example, is the photo of her at Shenval (whatever or wherever that is) doing there? All she's doing is standing in a garden, saying cheese. It does absolutely nothing for our understanding of her operatic notability.

• Regardless of the fact that you commenced this article, you do not own it and you have no right to make demands or threats. If you disagree with another editor's work on the article, by all means say so and say why, but do not threaten them or you will come off second best. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Song of Hiawatha (Coleridge-Taylor)

On April 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Song of Hiawatha (Coleridge-Taylor), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Neron (opera)

I was wondering how long my comment on the synopsis would last --Smerus (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I got a chuckle out of it, but really, it was wrist-slapping material, wasn't it. What a naughty Grand Tutnum you are sometimes!  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sardanapalus

Your decision, I leave it up to you, but it would be good to have him Cote d'Azur 08:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cote d'Azur (talk • contribs)

Edward Elgar

I see the name JackofOz flitting briefly across the editing page and rejoice. I am trying to beef this article up to a high standard, and will be extravagantly grateful for anything you feel moved to do in that direction. Tim riley (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh, such flattery and rodomontade on my behalf will get you ... quite a long way, actually, Tim. I do deign to pay Sir Edward a visit from time to time, tweaking this, improving that, and generally granting the article the unquantifiable benefits of my august presence. :) (**coughing fit**)

I'll be posting a new article today on his String Quartet in E minor, Op. 83, and in conjunction with that I'll have a good read through and see what needs doing. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Now done. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the string quartet. Nominate that for DYK - better chances than the historic opera characters. (I succeeded with a trio April 21.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Good news about the String Quartet. It's been on my to-do list for years, but having struggled mightily when writing the Piano Quintet article I have dragged my heels. Shall go and read it now. Meanwhile, many thanks for your attention to the main Elgar article. - Tim riley (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Later: excellent article on the String Quartet. I shall have to polish up the Piano Quintet one to bring it up to par. Now, who's going to do the Violin Sonata? Tim riley (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I just looked over the Quintet and nothing substantial needed changing. Just a couple of minor linkages. Fine work. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 17:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Woronińce, Wittgenstein, Liszt etc.

Hello! Woronińce now is called Voronivtsi and is here. Actually this is Vinnytsia Oblast, Khmilnytskyi Raion, Ukraine. It's absolutely exact; I checked it with Słownik Geograficzny Królestwa Polskiego (Geographical Dictionary of the Kingdom of Poland), where is described the area, Wittgensteins and distance to nearest towns. Sverige2009 (talk) 09:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hitchcock's body parts

I saw your comment at the Humanities desk. During the late 90s and early noughts, I spent far too many hours playing trivia online in a yahoo chat room. One popular (if false) question was the very one you mentioned. However the myth at the time was that he was missing a different body part. See also Snopes. I just thought I had to tell you about this very important bit of information. (Would love to be on your quiz team :) ---Sluzzelin talk 14:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh, thanks Sluzzy. I'm a bit of a loner when it comes to quizzes. I tend to get a team full of people who absolutely "know" certain answers and insist those be the team's responses, while I sit there absolutely knowing they're wrong yet not wanting to always have it my way. I have much to learn about such processes. Influencing others with integrity, I think it's called. Some say it's not about whether you win or lose, it's more about how much fun the team has. Balderdash and poppycock! Yes, I heard about the navel myth when I checked here. That was apparently quite widespread; but this ear thing, that was something else again. I can still see the quizmaster's face when we queried him; it was all "I got this off the internet, and it's therefore so automatically and undeniably true that questioning it is like doubting that we breathe air". Those poor students of his. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Spelling of "faze"

This is just a friendly comment about the spelling of the verb "faze", meaning "to disturb or alarm". You misspelled a form of the word. Please see wikt:faze. I will watch this talk page for any reply/replies to this comment. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Wavelength. That's something I frequently get wrong; my brain seems to have a blockage about 'faze'. One day soon I must compile a list of my common errors and transcribe it onto the head of a pin.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your words on the Humanities page on "the Pio Cult". In my work place I mentioned the word "miracle" and got into fierce trouble. But by chance the board were all previously in Lourdes and understood. The Beuroux of Investigation is in Lourdes for the whole of the Church. Normally it takes about 25 years to "prove" a miracle! I met number eight miracle!

MacOfJesus (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

List of compositions by Mikhail Glinka

Hello JackofOz: I have created a List of compositions by Mikhail Glinka with corresponding Russian titles. My Russian is not very good and, as I have hand-typed many of the titles, I am sure I have made grammatical and spelling errors. Are you able to proofread this list? Your help would be much appreciated. Thank you. Hrdinský (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Hrdinský. Well, you've done a great job as far as I can tell. I found exactly 1 definite Russian spelling error, and one other that you could easily get away with (трёх vs. трех). I made a few other minor tweakettes, but consider them specks of dust on an otherwise brilliant jewel. The most consistent "error", if we can use that term, is italicising standard titles such as Mazurka, Serenade, and so on. Normally we italicise true titles, for example, Mazurka brillante, but not Mazurka in G minor. And so on. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

JackofOz, Thank you so much for taking the time for this, for your help and advice. I really appreciate it. You're amazing! Hrdinský (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi JackofOz: I meant to ask you, there is one item in the Glinka list that doesn't have a translation: number 4 "Песня Ильинишны" of the stage work Prince Kholmsky. Does this translate as "Ilinishna's Song"? or something else? I haven't yet found this title in English translation. Thank you. Hrdinský (talk) 04:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what it means. Ilinishna (or Ilinichna, or Ilyinichna, or Ilyinishna, or Iljinichna, or Iljinishna, ....) is a female patronymic, meaning the daughter of Ilya. It's the female counterpart of Ilyich (as in Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky). So it refers to a particular person. Here are the words, apparently. I haven't been able to locate any details of the play Prince Kholmsky, its plot or its characters. It seems it was an obscure and minor work in the oeuvre of Nestor Kukolnik, a playwright who is himself quite obscure nowadays. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Hrdinský ^〒 04:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

List of longest reigning...

I almost restored the bit about her becoming the longest-reigning female monarch. What the writer was trying to say was the longest-reigning female monarch anywhere, no in the UK or its predecessor states. But, I decided against it because there is no citation and not likely to be one. -Rrius (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Moon in Sagittarius

Oh, so you're a fellow Moon in Sagittarius! You know, we have an inborn need to impart knowledge to others; I wonder how many Wikipedians do have their moons in Sagittarius?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Bach performances

You made me curious about the performance of the St John Passion in 1822 that you inserted in the St Matthew Passion but not in the other. Do you feel - as I do - that the lead of StM is too long and such things would rather belong later in the article? - I am pleased that Bach's cantata BWV 172 will appear on the Main page (again) for Pentecost, and also cantatas for Pentecost of Stölzel - a new discovery. - I am a bit confused - perhaps you can help - about the mentioning of Ordinary Time in the list List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function. I don't know the term and read that it is mostly catholic, so I wonder why it is a heading in the Lutheran calendar. And if there at all, why in the middle of Pentecost that was celebrated for three days in Bach's time? Can you help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Elgar Violin Concerto

Spoilsport! I was trying to use arithmetic to cast doubt on Dorabella's accuracy, as I am decidedly sceptical about the Julia Worthington candidacy.

I am plotting to put the main Elgar article up for peer review soon, and, though well aware of your usual eschewal of such things, I hope you might perhaps look in and add your thoughts. - Tim riley (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Afterthought: now I come to think of it, the only major gap in the main Elgar article is a paragraph or three of musical analysis of the main works from Gerontius to the Cello Concerto. Might you be inclined...? (Bats eyelids seductively...) - Tim riley (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

"Decidedly sceptical" about Worthington, Tim? All the more reason to maintain some sort of balance and not get too worked up about any tidbit of information that might support your case. If you can find a reliable source that says Powell was economical with the truth in claiming she'd held off for "40 years" when it was really only 36 years, that would be OK. But for an editor to go around accusing long dead people of making "inaccurate statements" when all she's doing is using a very common colloqualism rather than choose precise mathematical accuracy, is not OK. This, to me, is no different from saying "we should move on from the JFK assassination and not keep on trying to pin down the real culprit(s), because it happened 50 years ago" - when technically it's only been 47. No big deal.

Btw, it's not that I eschew peer reviews, FAs etc. I'm happy enough to help out, but I'm not interested in initiating such processes. Whenever I edit an article, I give it a quick (or not so quick) general review and almost always pick up stuff I wasn't particularly expecting to find.

Musical analysis - is that what I think it is? If so, no thanks. But if it's something else, then maybe. On that appropriately enigmatic note, I bid you goodday.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Shall recruit you if I can later! - Tim riley (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Edward Elgar

I have put the main Elgar article forward for peer review. If you are minded to look in, formally or informally, it will be esteemed a favour. - Tim riley (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Gay allegation then denied?

Hi, have you been adding claims such as "In July 2004, he denied that he is gay, after purportedly being "outed" by Rodney Croome. Croome immediately withdrew his claim and publicly apologised.".

If so, why? Tony (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What an extraordinary question, Tony. You know as well as I that who added what when to what article is on the record for all to see. A little homework on your part would have answered the first part of your question. The records reveal that:

• I added it to Graeme Murphy’s article on 15 September 2008 – [4]
• anon user 59.167.58.41 (not me) added it to Peter Sculthorpe’s article on 14 April 2009 - [5].

Now to the main question, “Why?”.

• A prominent gay activist publicly claims that Australia’s most notable living composer and Australia’s most notable living choreographer are both gay
• both the composer and the choreographer deny they are gay
• the gay activist withdraws the claim and issues an extensive public apology on his blog
• and you consider this trivial?

That it was Rodney Croome and not Fred Smith who made the claim lent it some credibility. That Sculthorpe is a man who has never married or had children is something that might lead many people to wonder about his sexuality, as I myself did here back in 2008. That Graeme Murphy is a ballet dancer makes him gay by default unless proven otherwise, in the minds of many people. He also has never had children, and only married in 2004, when aged 53, to a woman (Janet Vernon) many long assumed was simply his artistic partner but not any kind of romantic partner. Put these together and you’ve got an assertion – both men are gay - that many people would have not the slightest difficulty in believing. The fact that this assertion happened to contain no truth meant that Sculthorpe and Murphy could not just ignore it, but really they had no choice but to come out (no pun intended) and deny it, as they did. Then Rodney Croome devoted quite a few words on his blog to withdraw the assertion and make a formal public apology about being mistaken in this matter.

And you consider this trivial? Please. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It is utterly trivial and at all stages has been odious and not worthy of WP. The allegation stank because it (i) sought to make a big deal out of being homosexual, (ii) reinforced a binary "you're gay or you're straight" thinking; and (iii) unreasonably intruded into people's private lives. The denials stank because they reinforced the worst prejudices in society (and in at least one case were false). The airing of this on WP damages the cause of a mature approach to homosexuality. Tony (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The more heated your language, the less trivial the whole issue seems to be, Tony. I agree entirely that the "outing" - whether true or not - stank, particularly coming from someone who presumably would support homosexuals being left alone to go about their business without fear of molestation, discrimination or invasion of their privacy. But the claim having been made, I cannot see that a person in that position is anything but within their rights to make a rebuttal (or indeed an acknowledgment). They could of course have also chosen to just ignore it, but as you know, silence is often taken as acquiescence. I am in no position to know whether their denials were true; all I have to go on is what's on the public record. But you are happy to state in this open forum that at least one of these gentlemen was making a false denial, and is indeed gay, so you seem to know more of "the real truth". But at the same time you say it's unencyclopedic and trivial, and not a mature approach to homosexuality. That really takes the cake, mate.

Remember, we're not taking any position in our articles about their sexuality, and we have no prurient interest in what they do behind closed doors or with whom. All we're doing is reporting that a claim has been made and that that claim has been denied - end of story. We have a strong coverage of LBGT issues on WP, including gay categories for many hundreds of individuals. There's nothing immature about this. I could point to any number of other articles where we report that gay claims have been made and denied, or acknowledged, so why is there an issue about these 2 guys? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with almost everything you said. Tony (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Disclosing the fact of one's disagreement while keeping the specifics to oneself is not any kind of basis for further discussion. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"Prurient" is certainly the word. Tony (talk) 11:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If you continue to withhold whatever it is you disagree about, while still happy to come here to make posts like that, Tony, I'll have to conclude you have nothing to say and this whole thread has been a colossal waste of my time. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: This discussion now continues at Talk:List of Australian composers#This is a pretty watery attempt. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

List of operas by Daniel Auber

Hi. re List of operas by Daniel Auber title change, I am a bit puzzled to learn "there are other Aubers". Who are they? I know of Aubert, but that is a different spelling. Thanks. --Kleinzach 04:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is this Michael Auber, but I was really thinking homophones such as the various Auberts. All these surnames are sufficiently easily confusable as to require the full name to be used in a list such as this. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Michael Auber? Wrong link? He's not in Oxford (either opera or music) or in Opera Grove.

I understand that you dislike not having first names in these lists and you disagree with the original decision to leave them out (made in reference to List of operas by Mozart). If you want to get the rule changed please discuss this with the Opera Project, and then make sure all the titles (not just one or two of them) are changed. For my part I'm perfectly happy to see all of them changed to include full names in line with the 'Compositions by . . .' series. (It wasn't my idea to drop the first names.) What is not a good idea is to have these titles changed individually and at random as you, an experienced editor, should know. --Kleinzach 05:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Michael Auber was in that article till 2 June, the very day I referenced it. How odd.

To my knowledge, I've had no involvement in discussions about the general format for the titles of these articles, and I wasn't aware there was a consensus about it. For the future, I'd be pleased if you simply alerted me to the existence of these matters, rather than didactically advising me what I, as an experienced editor, "should know". It's not possible for any one editor, no matter how experienced, to be aware of everything that might be of interest to them. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see Category:Lists of operas by composer that shows you the way these articles are titled. (Checking categories is always an easy way of seeing what other editors have been doing.) I did explain about the original decision to call List of operas by Mozart by that title before. If you have forgotten that's fine, it's a minor matter, no problem, but please don't change any more of these titles on an individual basis. Thank you for your understanding. As an experienced editor, you will appreciate the importance of consistency, either in following a practice or in changing it. --Kleinzach 01:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Jack. An article I just created (Sebastian Reid) is being AfD'ed. Could you take a look, and if you think it merits being kept, could you vote? Thanks so much -- Softlavender (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ganz einander -- yet another AfD. Care to vote? Antje Thiele. If so, thanks very much. Sincerely, Softlavender (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Chopin composition names

I see you are moving various compositions by Chopin to include a comma before the opus number. I have no problems with either format as long as we are consistent. Just a heads up that the Military Polonaise still needs a comma but the move log is so messed up you'll need an admin to move it to Polonaises, Op. 40 (Chopin). Also the nocturnes all need moving. Keep up the good work! Centy – reply • contribs – 13:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Nocturnes now done. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You and the your friend Eddie

... have been mentioned here. Are you feeling feisty? :-) Bielle (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hans Litten

I liked your understated editorial comment. Made me laugh out loud. Marrante (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I had to look it up before I remembered it. Glad you enjoyed it. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Mannatech

The quote really did use the word "predominately", however the dictionary suggests the quote is using the wrong word, so it may be corrected here. —Prhartcom 18:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. That's a common error, in the same class as "definately" instead of "definitely". If we're explicitly quoting something, using quotation marks, we should quote exactly and use [sic] after any spelling errors. But if we're simply using the source as the basis of our own sentences, then of course we should not be copying spelling errors. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Just had to return to this rather old, minor subject, as I feel you should know my opinion that this week, I (in a fit of nostalgia) re-read some history of this article and was struck by something: your arrogance. "Must not mis-quote people" you accused in the edit summary [6], as if you had read the actual quote that I had researched and supplied...and which it turned out you had not [7]. Please be careful how you give people advice. —Prhartcom (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

On your last point: Thank you, I will be more careful in future. However, it doesn't go down too well when the person who's asking me to be careful about giving advice also uses personal abuse ("your arrogance") in their same post. It kinda waters down their message, don't you think.

On the substance of the issue: OK, the source did misspell the word "predominantly" as "predominately". If we're using an indirect quotation (e.g. Mannatech has claimed that its products use predominantly natural ingredients), then it's fine to use the word we believe they meant to use. But if we're quoting them exactly, using quotation marks, we have no right to change anything they wrote, including misspellings, because if we do change it, it is no longer the word they used and it is misleading to claim (via the quote marks) that it is. What we can do is put [sic] after the offending word and let readers decide for themselves what the source must have intended. I have made such an edit now. If you don't like that, you're at liberty to convert it to an indirect quote, and fix the spelling at that time. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Desks

Hi, Jack. I think I failed to understand your post on the Miscellaneous refdesk of 19:24, 13 June 2010. This might be due to either a language barrier or some sort of misunderstanding (which is also likely to have been caused by a language barrier). I could guess you seem to be telling me I have mistyped what should be "that page" as "this page". But I typed that on purpose, because I meant the following: «WP:RD/E is a better place for such questions. There are many such questions on this page (i.e. the Misc RD, e.g. [1], [2] itself, as well as [3], [4], [5] - also sports-related); but they shouldn't be here, because the Ent RD is a better place for them.» So if what I have worded is generally ambiguous, then it's my fault. If it's ambiguous for you only, it's your fault. If you have meant something different, then it's a double fault of mine, because it will turn out I have both improperly worded my post and failed to understand yours. So, what's the matter? --Магьосник (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Магьосник/Theurgist. Maybe I've misinterpreted your post. When you wrote "there have recently been, and surely there will be, many of those on this page", I assumed you were referring to the place you had just recommended that such question be posted, viz. the Entertainment desk. Because to acknowledge that many World Cup questions have been and will continue to be asked on the Miscellaneous desk is to undermine your request that such questions be posted on the Entertainment desk. You might as well as have written "I know many of you are going to ignore me, but I ask/recommend/suggest that such questions be posted to the Entertainment desk". That that was your message never occurred to me, which is why I believed the "this" was more appropriately a "that". I now see that you were indeed referring to the Entertainment Miscellaneous desk ("this"), but I still can't quite see what your point was in so doing. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean Miscellaneous desk with your last mention of "Entertainment desk". Everything would be all right if I had added «, but they'd better be asked at the Ent desk, because they belong there.» to end the sentence. But to revise one's post after it has been replied by someone else would definitely be a violation of the commonly accepted netiquette. :) Cheers! --Магьосник (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support!

Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I've just read your profile and it's obvious to me that you're a learned person and artist and since you're from Celtic descent I suppose you know very well what are a minorized language and culture and maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to this moment because Catalan is not supported by a state even though our Association is working real hard. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Capsot (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd's Resignation

I think you need to turn on a TV pronto, and check out the news; big things are happening in Australian politics. I'm upset that you were rude at me, but I can't blame you for not knowing, and suspecting it was a joke. I guess you'll settle down when you hear the story, and be able to review the comment you made to me. Ross22 (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Mate, I've seen all the news, I know what's going on. Things are going to be chaotic enough for a while if, as I suspect, Gillard gets up tomorrow. It doesn't help matters by adding unmitigated rubbish to well developed articles. In my book, that's worse than rude. But if you're actually serious, you should know that Rudd has done no such thing as resigned, as you claimed. He is fighting on; that's what tomorrow's caucus ballot is all about. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Famous last words. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: From one bit of a pedant to another

Ha ha. Nice catch.

I'll blame sloppy typing, and the effect of the smaller and smaller fonts today's browsers seem to use on my aging (or should that be ageing?) eyes. HiLo48 (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Jessie Cooper

Good stuff! Well done. (Gee, it doesn't seem like 17 years ... ) Cheers, and keep up the good work, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

capitalization in titles

Just FYI, I responded to a comment you left in 2008 at Talk:La Vie en rose (film), and also raised the issue at WP:HELP. Mathew5000 (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Edward V

Hi Jack, thanks for pointing out the date discrepancy; i've made the two agree with each other, at least. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 06:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Lindsay. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Oberon, Leigh and Milligan

Hello Jack, I know they were born in India, but I was referring to the sentence in MOS:BIO "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable." In that sense, Leigh and Oberon were both British at the time they achieved notability. The place of birth is covered in the infobox and the section discussing origin, and the first sentence is usually a brief sentence explaining their notability. Leigh is probably a better example than Oberon, but the fact she was Indian-born is pretty far down the list of what she was notable for and therefore I think to say "was a British actress" is enough. Do you think the discussion and conjecturing about Oberon's origins are notable enough for the lead? I was thinking a paragraph at the end of the lead section might do a better job of explaining her more unusual circumstance. Rossrs (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi (1 question)

You said: And if that is the case, it's no wonder their book is not a best seller, if they use language such as "Why the author ... is not on Wikipedia?"

Well, the thing is that I'm not a native speaker of English, so... what's wrong with that question? I'd like to know that since it sounds "correct" to me. Thanks. --Belchman (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The standard form is "Why is the author not on Wikipedia?", or "Why isn't the author on Wikipedia?". When you're not asking a question, you can say things like "I know why the author is not on Wikipedia: nobody's ever heard of him". But in a question, the word "why" has to be followed by a verb.

"Why is the cat eating the mouse?" - NOT "Why the cat is eating the mouse?"

Clear now? Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I forgot about this question, haha. And by the way... well, that's really basic English grammar, but for some reason it sounded okay to me when I first read that. Thank you! --Belchman (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Big Five (orchestras)

Hi. I have nominated the above article for deletion. I welcome your input, pro or con, here.THD3 (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Jean-François de Galaup comte de Lapérouse -or- Jean-François de Galaup, comte de La Pérouse

I have suggested a move of the above and I note from the history of the article that you have previously held an interest in it. I thought it appropriate to pay you the courtesy of letting you know about this. It of course an entirely separate issue to the naming of the article covering the suburb of La Perouse in Sydney (which is of course correct), I am not mad enough to suggest changing that. However as you appear to have an interest in the La Perouse (suburb) article as well you might like to have a look at the discussion page of that article in regard to the naming conventions used for the person Lapérouse in the articles content. This should be reviewed for all the same reasons as the article on the person himself. Felix505 (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of convicts on the First Fleet

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of convicts on the First Fleet, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of convicts on the First Fleet. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Smartse (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent Changes Camp Canberra Aug 11, 2010

I saw your edits on the University of Canberra WP entry, and thought, by chance, you might like to come to this:

RecentChangesCamp, Canberra is being held at the University of Canberra, Building 7, Room 7XC37 on 11 August 2010.
ABOUT | REGISTRATION | SCHEDULE

Hope we'll see you and friends there. Leighblackall (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but I doubt I can come. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Brittle stars and fried chicken ...

... is all I got when I looked for pics of the Ozatorium. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

We beggars have to take what we can get.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I was surprised, actually. I expected that particular pun to be taken, but it looks like yours is the only Ozatorium! (For "Ozatorio" I only found a 4 year old homebred brown mare). Time for you to copyright it and grab the hostname www.ozatorium.au! ---Sluzzelin talk 05:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, good lord, Sluzzelin!! You don't think I'd ever have anything to do with something as common and tawdry as a website, do you. Heavens above!  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Pyotr Kapitsa

I got it from the Russian Wikipedia page. Languagehat (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all that research and figuring it out! Languagehat (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Previous consensuses about not deleting questions seeking assistance for suicide

You mention this in the reference desk talk page. I'm extremely curious now and would like to read about this discussion. Would you please show me where I could find it? Many thanks, Royor (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sluzzelin provided the link to the thread furthur down the page. I should have read furthur ahead before posting this request. Sorry for brothering you. Royor (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, brother.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Tassie Devil FAR

I have nominated Tasmanian Devil for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Malkinann (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources for music written for The Tempest

Hi Jack,

In this edit you added information on several composers and musical pieces written for or inspired by The Tempest. The article is currently a Good Article candidate and I'm having trouble finding the sources for this information. Is there any chance you could dig up proper refs for this? See the bottom of the review page for the specific citations requested by the reviewer. TIA, --Xover (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I managed to scrounge up some cites from Arthur Sullivan and Ernest Chausson, but this is not my area of expertise so I'm not entirely sure of them; and some were for the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians which I don't have access to and so can't quite verify. Any chance you could look them over and see if they seem ok? --Xover (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The elusive Samuel Russell...

...potential poet laureate, was really just Samuel Rogers 196.215.52.3 (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Lovely, thank you. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

WA Greens

They gained party status when Adele Carles won (they went from 4 to 5 MPs). It counts for both houses AFAIK, not just one House. Bandt will caucus with the Greens. Timeshift (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in, but yes: I've found a source for it here. Frickeg (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks both. It surprises me that both houses are considered, given the supposed independence of the houses. But there you go, my weekend of learning is off to a great start. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Gabriel Fauré

Hello, Jack. I see you looked in at this article recently. I've just given it a major overhaul (more than doubled the length) and if you could find a moment to revisit it and add or amend ad lib it would be esteemed a favour. Best wishes, Tim riley (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you very much. - Tim riley (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Scarlatti

Hello. I noticed, you are reformatting the list of Scarlatti's works. I think it's a great idea to add the other catalogue numbers here, but also, it must be a tedious task if you do it manually. If you want, I may help you with at least converting the remaining works here to the table format, so that only L and P numbers would need to be added manually. And if you use classical.net, it could be possible to convert the information directly from there. Best wishes, --Tomaxer (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tomaxer. All contributions gratefully accepted. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Brady

Hey JackofOz, I read over the sources and made some fairly large additions to Stephen Brady, a page you've contributed a lot to. Check it out and let me know what you think. :) jtact (talk) 04:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Papyrus...

Jack of Oz, I'm so sorry I mistook your name for the font. It was a log-in, check for answers, check a few links you provided, reply thx, log out, go do stuff IRL kind of situation, and I picked the first word I saw in the edit window. I really appreciated your answer, but getting your name wrong is kind of embarrassing. I had a conversation today with someone about your examples, so I can't thank you enough. And again, please accept my apologies for this almost rude error! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You know, I really didn't notice that until you mentioned it, and probably wouldn't have. I see the word "Papyrus" often enough near my name in edit mode that when someone else uses it, it just glides past unnoticed. I've looked at that thread about 20 times now, and it never occurred to me there was anything wrong or that my username isn't actually "Papyrus". I'm usually like a steel trap about details of that kind; not sure what's going on lately.

Your link pointed to some other thread that I had nothing to do with, but I found what you're talking about here.

No harm done and no apology necessary, Keraunoscopia. Feel free to call me Papyrus whenever you like.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, may I call you Papirosa? ---Sluzzelin talk 06:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I gave up fags about a year ago. Don't mind the occasional cigarette, though. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I occasionally ear-browse through random lists of favourite tunes while spending time online, and these past days I had the non-random pleasure of going through Timeless Tunes for Tuneless Times (well most of it, I couldn't find the Franz Schmidt thingy). Thanks for that! Keraunoscopia, if you're listening, check out that list, in particular Piano Sonata in C major, D. 840 (Schubert) for a sonata with only two movements (by abandonment). ---Sluzzelin talk 06:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sluzzelin, great suggestion, I will check it out! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

hahahaha, i can't even get the link right. It's just one of those weeks. Thanks for your kindness! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Roy Douglas

You should know that I have just blanked this article for some continuing close paraphrase copyright violations which it was tagged for back in February. An example of the problem is already at the article's talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Denise Lutgens

Hey J-Ziddy
Need your opinion here. Denise Lutgens - notable?
--Shirt58 (talk) 12:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Edward Elgar's Enigma Solution - (Pi solution is confirmed by Elgar's 1929 notes)

At your suggestion (several years ago) I got my theory published at long last (with the substantial help from my "academic" son). My proposed addition to the enigma page is in the enigma discussion section for your amusement and comment. Best Regards, Dick Dnlsanta (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#.22Luke.22

		Cookies!
		Truce! :) Lexicografía (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yea, verily. I’m always up for peace and good will. (Luke 2:14 seemed very apt here.) Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Emma Hamilton's birthdate

Lofts says on page 10 of her bio on Emma that although several DOBs were claimed to have been hers (6 May, 15 April), Emma herself always celebrated her birthday on 26 April. A parish registry shows her parents to have been married in June 1765. Soory for my delay in getting this info off to you. Both of my PCs were put out-of-action until yesterday evening.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Wm Plomer

Hello Jack. (Just come to you from the Frank Kermode talk.) Your auto-description as "a rose-red sissy half as old as time" helpfully links to Burgon's page, but some people may not know that it was William Plomer's D'Arcy Honeybunn, in one of his poetic satires (late 1930s?), who was first so described. The preciousness of P's prose I find impossible, but he has great facility in his light verse. Spicemix (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Italic marks - placement

Hi Jack, I don't think it makes a difference in the appearance of the page, so my edit was indeed fairly useless. However it's more standard to put italics outside the links, as far as I know. Graham87 11:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Not sure about "standard". I see both approaches all the time. Only yesterday, I spent a while reformatting a section of my personal subject index page (see here), where I replaced a mish mash of both styles with one consistent approach. Having the italics inside makes for a much cleaner look, imo, which makes it a lot easier when editing. But whatever works for you. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, since you think it looks much cleaner, I've put the italics back inside the links. It's just occurred to me that I don't normally find the italic markup in the edit window with my screen reader, unless I review the editing area character-by-character so I hear where all the apostrophes are. I've learnt most of my editing tricks by example, so I think I've just picked up the idea that all italic markup should be outside links by force of habit. Graham87 13:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Verdi tirarsi

Hi Jack, you are right, I will try to be more consistent in asking questions. That means I will ask the second question a day later, to let the first one get noticed. The instrument question was answered completely, the Requiem still needs improvement. Will you help, smile?

Happily, Gerda. There's no need to wait, just create a separate thread and ask your separate question there. I'm sure there are more than enough people to notice them. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Compton Mackenzie

Hello again! Thanks for your improvements to Compton Mackenzie; now that I look, I see you were there on the talk page years ago. I have only recently read any of his work: The Monarch of the Glen (novel) I found as funny as Blandings Castle, as opposed to the tedious but scenic Monarch of the Glen (TV series). And I was interested to learn that his roman-a-clef Extraordinary Women had at least some basis in his wife's lesbian affair(s) on Capri. He was a prolific writer! I was delighted to discover Sublime Tobacco, which the BMJ review considers an apologia. Fascinating character. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You might be interested

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Co-editor_apparently_banning_me_from_pages Smatprt (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there JackofOz, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:JackofOz/List of monuments to composers. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

IPA

hai dʒæk!
juː 'sɪmpli mʌst lɜːn ðə aipiæi!
It really does explain so many things.
--ʃɜːt fɪfti æɪt (tɔːk) 10:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Chopin Statue, Warsaw

Hello. I'm writing on behalf of WP:WikiProject Poland to thank you for writing Chopin Statue, Warsaw. I'd also like to let you know that with a little expansion, the article may qualify to be on Wikipedia's front page as part of WP:Did you know. Please leave me a message if you have any questions.

User:Piotrus has asked me to recommend that you add a source to the sentence concerning the sign left on the destroyed statue ("I don’t know who destroyed me..."). If the source is in Polish, you might want to include the full quotation in the footnote.

Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Carolyne zu Sayn-Wittgenstein

Hello! Can you help me with the article in German wiki? They reverted my edition, as "no sources", so, actually they have absolutely different version of names, place of birth etc., than we all. My problem is, that I speak no German, so, I cannot to discuss, why they are germanizing Polish names (Piotr --> Peter, Paulina --> Pauline etc). And I have no sources in German, of course. Thanks! Sverige2009 (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I doubt I can help. My German is minimal. Sorry. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Beethoven Monument, Bonn

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Beethoven monument

You erected a wonderful Beethoven monument! Thanks also for starting to look at the Verdi Requiem. I would like to see the ref tag leave the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. Verdi, you're next. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

!!

You've met Claudio Arrau!? You have to tell me about this! 24.91.157.67 (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I do say that some of these "meetings" were just a brief handshake, sometimes not even that. This was backstage after a recital he gave at the Brisbane City Hall, in the very early 1970s. I remember most of the program: Liszt Jeux d'eau a la Villa d'Este; Beethoven Sonata No. 31 in A flat; Mussorgsky Pictures at an Exhibition; possibly something by Schumann (? Carnaval). I went backstage and got his autograph. I don't remember actually shaking his hand, but we did exchange a few pleasantries. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Paganiniana (Casella)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Paganiniana (Casella), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.freebase.com/view/en/paganiniana.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Lighthearted comment

I've always been tempted to add a link to my favourite "Dif of the Day" on my userpage. If I actually did have one, this is the dif that would be displayed for today. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

:) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Paganiniana a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Elgar's Second

Hello, Jack. Once upon a time you commented on the Elgar Symphony No 2 revision page, "Wow!!! in 6 years at Wikipedia, that has to be the worst example of gross, extreme, bizarre overlinking I have ever seen." And so indeed it was. I have finally nerved myself to weed it and to give it a general going over. It is not as I'd have written it – it's still a bit too technical for a reader who likes the music but doesn't know a sub-dominant from a dominatrix – but I think it will pass muster now. Would you mind having a look at it when you have a moment. Regards. – 15:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC) (Oops- forgot my tildes! Ditz!) Tim riley (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Melbourne

Do you seriously believe that Australia did not have a capital city between 1901 and 1927? The meeting of national government gives all the legitimacy needed for a city to claim status as capital of a nation. 119.161.71.12 (talk) 03:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)M0F0

It depends on the context. Which page are we talking about? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess you're referring to this. It's a semantic argument. If, by "capital", you mean the place where the government meets, then Melbourne was the capital 1901-27. But if, by "capital", you mean the place that was formally declared to be the capital, then there is no Australian place that fits the bill 1901-27. My understanding is that the highest status accorded to Melbourne during that period was "temporary seat of government". If you can find a contemporary citation that disproves me, I'll be happy to reconsider. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree: the term "capital" belies the legitimate home of the seat of power. This was Melbourne during the first years of Australia as a country. Why do I get the impression you are a non-Victorian? And you haven't answered my question as whether or not Australia did not have a capital city. Also, by your "semantic" reasoning; we do not have a capital city at present. That is incorrect; it is clear that Canberra is the capital and Melbourne was in the years preceding its construction.

119.161.71.12 (talk) 05:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)M0F0

What's my location got to do with anything? For the record, I have been a Victorian for the past 8 years. I lived in Melbourne 2002-06, and if I were ever to move to a capital city again, it would definitely be Melbourne. But please don't personalise these sorts of discussions.

I gave you my reasoning above. It did acknowledge one way in Melbourne could be considered the capital. I'd still like to see some references from the 1901-27 period that demonstrates that Melbourne was regarded as Australia's capital at that time. If they don't exist, then it's not up to us latter-day folk to rewrite history to suit our convenience.

I have no idea what you mean by "the term "capital" belies the legitimate home of the seat of power". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the IP hasn't bothered reading section 125 of the Constitution of Australia. Bidgee (talk) 05:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)