User talk:JackofOz/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Congratulations

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

```Buster Seven Talk 15:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you. I knew it was getting up there but I had no real idea of the numbers. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 19:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Very impressive, for music and spirit! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. I get around a bit. May we all continue to strive lustily and thrive mightily.  :) -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 21:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Sound good! On radio today: Barenboim Der fliegende Holländer. Of course it's "possible" to say Wagner composed "The Flying Dutchman", but it sounds like stub or start-class to me, - in a Featured article I would expect a bit more precision ;) - Did you read Cosima Wagner? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm just going to bite my tongue here. You may prefer to bite even further into cherries and apples if you like, but you know my position. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 22:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Michael Bednarek read, and changed his ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Mozart trumpet concerto

Hello, JackofOz. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 January 27#"Mozart's Trumpet Concerto in A-flat major".
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Double sharp (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The G-sharp minor link was wrong – I fixed it. Double sharp (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Responded about "deest". Double sharp (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

"Shut the f-ck up"?

Really, Jack, I am surprised by your comment. You will note that I am not the one telling someone he was in "violation of policy", starting threads about him, putting warnings on his talk page, and suggesting topic blocks. Perhaps you can let me know what his comments are supposed to mean if they aren't threats to file an ANI complaint? In any case< I am surprised and disappointed by your hostility and the way it was expressed. μηδείς (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• It was supposed to get you to sit up and take notice. It worked. That's called effective communication.

• You refer to the "threat" directed at you (it wasn't a threat but a warning), but fail to make any mention of your disruptive behaviour that led to that warning being issued. Coins have two sides, but you seem to be wanting to convince us they have only one; naturally, the one that paints you in the best light or shines the spotlight on someone else. Nice try, but the sooner you get out of "poor me, the victim" mentality, the better for you and all of us. It's incredibly transparent, and also incredibly insulting. What you must think of our intelligence to even try such inane stunts, I can only guess.

• The only thing about my post I withdraw is the opening sentence. I should never allow myself to become so irritated that I explode like that. The rest is self-explanatory, and stands. See Steve Summit's post for an excellent paraphrase.

• You're surprised by my hostility, yet it occurs to me you have never explained why you were so unreasonably and unnecessarily hostile to me on 12 June 2011 and all throughout the rest of that year until I finally read the Riot Act to you in October (not that you've ever responded to anything I wrote there). What goes around, comes around.

• But let's leave that to one side in the interests of moving on. After that rocky start in 2011, you and I have since shown we can get along pretty well most of the time. For my part, I hope that continues. But I will not tolerate anyone using petty threats to try to get their way; and that includes pointed references to what ANI said last time but chose not to act on. There was only one reason for your mentioning that at all, and if you think others can't see through that attempt, think again. The irony is that ANI does not have the power anyway, but that doesn't seem to stop you from trying to use it as a lever to get your way.

• You have many good qualities, but your strong streak of arrogance and obduracy do not serve you well. Or this project. I know consensus is hard for some people. It's hard for me a lot of the time. It involves letting go of positions and attitudes and desires that we hold dear. But it is fundamental to Wikipedia. Please start to practise it, not just when things go your way, but most particularly when they don't. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 06:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a glitch I tried to save a long response and it simply deleted the section instead--you'll see from my talk page other examples of this, unfortunately. I can't retrieve what I wrote, so, to sum up: May 2011 is a long time, I explained then my problem was having my actions ascribed to my sex and orientation. I never think of that when communicating with you. (2) Thanks for removing the cursing. You know you can get my attention with a brief note to my talk page. (3) You will note again since last night Macon has put yet another ANI warning (I deleted it) on my talk page. My responding to these threats on my talk page, in edit summaries talking about my "violating policy", and the suggestion of a topic ban, etc., by this editor doesn't constitute a threat on my part--indeed, see WP:BACKFIRE which is perfectly relevant. In any case, I haven't left any messages or warnings or started any discussions anywhere threatening to do anything. (4) As for the "sick" thread itself, hatting wouldn't have removed the text, and it is far from clear that there is a consensus against hatting--or even that you think the question and StuRat's answer are valid. Given the question's moribund, I think as it stands it speaks eloquently for its own appropriateness. μηδείς (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC) PS, thanks for catching my bracketing format error or the ref desk talk page, that was a blunder on my part. And I am on the last ten pages of Ecstacy so I hope to finish it by easter. I was wondering if you had any other works on music and consciousness to recommend? μηδείς (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised the 2011 stuff came back up after all this time. It certainly wasn't in my conscious mind when I posted the "Shut ...up" post. But it's obviously still lurking down there, not resolved, just waiting to be triggered by any suggestion from you - of all people - that I'm being hostile.

See, hostility was the whole problem in 2011. You were amazingly hostile to me right from the start, way back in June. I just couldn't understand what your beef with me was. You said it was about me attributing things to you based on my perception of your sex and your orientation and other aspects of your personal identity. And I told you, as calmly and clearly as I possibly could, that I NEVER made any such attribution, and I challenged you to come up with any proof that I had ever done so, but you never could, but you still continued to treat me as the offender and the bad guy despite a total lack of evidence. That went on for literally 4 months. And that was why I went into chapter and verse on 16 October. That was in fact the first time that I ever made any reference whatsoever to your sexual orientation, and I only did so because you had so doggedly persisted in your claim that I had been discriminating against you for months. A claim that was not supported by even the slightest shred of evidence. Nothing.

But at that time you were in the habit of coming on to the talk page, having your say, then announcing you were immediately removing the page from your watchlist, which meant that you wouldn't see any responses to what you just said, so there was no point anyone making any responses. And any posts to your own talk page would be summarily removed without response either. This utter disinterest in what anyone else has to say about anything is what fuelled the perception of arrogance and self-centredness. You have only yourself to blame for that. Add that to the routine appeals to the spurious authority of ANI to "have the Ref Desks shut down", and we're painting a not very pretty picture here. Because that is akin to a parent saying to their children "If you don't do what I tell you, I'll kill all of you" - and meaning it. Is it any wonder you have a hard time getting along with people?

Anyway, I still don't think you ever saw my novella of 16 October 2011 – because if you did, you’ve never withdrawn or apologised for any of your outrageous behaviour towards me for so long, which would be the only proper course of action open to a person with any sense of decency or integrity - so here's the link. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 21:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I have read that novella several times. Answering it point by point would be pointless. The bottom line is that what you refer to in that missive as my hostility towards you is your interpretation as hostile of comments that were not so meant. I can't apologize for what you want me to apologize for, because there never has been and is no hostility. "I you don't do what I tell you, I'll kill all of you" are your words, a projection, not mine. It's not a reality I can deal with. If you can point to where I have ever said, if you don't let me get my way I will file an ANI/RfC/whatever to get the ref desk shut down let me know. Regardless, I enjoy your company and will continue to do so. μηδείς (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, in that case, you and I have utterly different concepts of hostility. That's OK, I can deal with that. Of course, the catch is that, if you can so blithely deny you felt any hostility towards me on multiple occasions over a period of 4 months in 2011, how much more easily can I deny I felt any towards you on a single occasion this week. There are no reparations to be made, because no offences were ever committed. By either party. Problem solved. Let sweetness and light reign long in our hearts. I wonder why the people at Versailles and Nuremberg never thought of this innovative approach. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 22:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hehe, you'll notice I didn't demand an apology--I was just surprised by the vehemence of it all. μηδείς (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

But as has now been incontrovertibly established, there never was any hostility, so there was nothing to be "surprised and disappointed" about. I wonder what we've actually been talking about in this thread. I'm sure I left a subject lying around here some place. Can't seem to locate it just at the moment. Tell you what: leave it with me and I'll get back to you.  :) -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 23:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: "You know you can get my attention with a brief note to my talk page", that has not been my experience.[1][2][3][4]

Jack of Oz, what do you think of a WP:RFC/U? I think the chances are good if we ask for a reasonable and proportionate administrative action. I am thinking about asking for the following restriction:

• "User:Medeis (also known as μηδείς) is banned from any actions that modify any other editor's comments on any talk page, broadly construed. This includes modifying signatures and moving the comment to another page. This does not include changes specifically allowed by the 'Personal talk page cleanup' and 'Removing prohibited material' sections of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments."

In my opinion, this will disallow one part of the disruptive behavior while allowing normal posting to talk pages. Not a total solution, but still worth doing. What do you think? Is this worth trying? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, Medeis|μηδείς objects to the above[5], but of course asking the advice of another involved editor before filing a case at WP:RFC/U is allowed. Medeis|μηδείς is no stranger to ANI[6] and RFC/U,[7] so this should be familiar territory. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Simply put, Guy, I'm over it. I don't have any taste for this sort of thing, and I have bigger fish to fry. I'd rather let sleeping dogs lie, at least for now. I like to help out on the Ref Desk in various ways, but my main purpose on Wikipedia is to write articles. I'm heavily bogged down in researching and constructing my latest magnum opus at the moment, and these side skirmishes are taking up too much of my time as it is.

I don't want these remarks to be read as my condoning any inappropriate behaviour on anyone's part, but I have priorities. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 02:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

That magnum opus I mentioned is now out there and is available to be cut to ribbons. If anyone dares. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 22:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a damn fine article. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 07:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Belly's Binge

(as Walton dubbed Belshazzar's Feast) - citation for your recent addition re Karajan, please. Tim riley (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, sir! Tim riley (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Gabrielle Krauss

Hello! Your submission of Gabrielle Krauss at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The DYK review of Template:Did you know nominations/Manuel Quiroga (violinist) also needs a response. I don't believe you were pinged on this one, but it's been since January 15, so please stop by as soon as possible. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

List of Polymath articles

[8] Jack I will help you fix all the locations, we can do this together. One of the problems I had putting that column together was the movement of people between cities, empires and borders. The location I went with was the nation state and ruling territory where the polymaths did most of their work. I am working on an additional table to put below the first one to solve location and language problems. Bhalluka (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your contributions to the list of polymath page! If you have any more polymaths, please add them! Bhalluka (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frederick Delius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aeolian Hall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Undid move

Hi there. I just undid your move of two of Handel's violin sonatas. For one thing, that made them inconsistent with the naming of the rest of the category, and for another, one of them was specifically called out in WP:NCM for being named the way it was. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The inconsistency thing doesn't bother me so much. Not that I'm not a great lover of consistency - I am - but I don't believe in keeping something dead wrong just because related items are also dead wrong.

My only exception, which I've expressed many times around here, is when we have contradictory information in the same article. For example: in the lede and infobox we say the subject was born in 1847, but in Early life and the categories at the bottom we say he was born in 1849. I would always prefer we give the same date throughout the article, even if it's the wrong date, than speak with forked tongue. Same applies to not mixing "February 14, 1847" with "14 February 1847" with "the 14th of February, 1847" with "02-14-1847" or any other formats. One format per article. And of course we don't mix American English with British English with Australian English etc etc in the same article. Things like that.

The NCM thing is something I'd have taken a lot more notice of, if I'd remembered it. Reviewing it now, I see your reversion is completely in accordance with that.

But at some stage I'm going to have take issue about this general guideline, because I don't think we should ever be expecting our readers to know that HWV means it's a work by Handel. But maybe that's not the point of the HWV here. Maybe it's just to disambiguate it from other violin sonatas in the same key, and we're not getting into the name of the composer at all. That might work at some logical level, but it misses the point, imo. If we have a list of sonatas in C major, surely the thing that people want to know first and foremost is: "Which composer wrote which sonata?". And then - but only then - it's "Oh, but Handel wrote 20 sonatas in C major. Which one is this one?". If we then separate out all the C major sonatas by Handel, we can give all their HWV numbers and we don't need to keep on saying they're by Handel. That becomes a totally Handel-specific context. The title of a Wikipedia article is most definitely NOT a Handel-specific context. If I click "Random article" and happen to land on Violin Sonata in A major (HWV 789), and I have no idea what "HWV" is, I have to read some way into the article to discover what it refers to. The word "Handel" surely has to figure somewhere in the disambiguation.

Now, I know what the objection is. We have thousands of titles that don't have any disambiguations at all, because the names are unique. Anyone who'd never heard of The Rite of Spring would have to read the lede to find out who composed it, and even what it is (movie? book? video game?). Hence, the disambiguation tag is not primarily designed to identify the author; it just so happens that in many cases the author's name is the most fitting way of separating two works with the same name. I understand all that.

All I can tell you is that using "(HWV 123)" alone (or, for that matter, "Op. 34" or "L. 452" or "B.23" or any of the other things listed at Catalogues of classical compositions), without mentioning the name of the composer, creates more questions than it answers, in the minds of the readers, who are, after all, why we're here. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 21:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Nicolas Slonimsky

I tried to merge the two branches of the article; please take a look. – SJ + 20:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It reads much better this way. Well done, Sj. I've made some latter-day tweaks. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 23:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Are you sure Grabowsky was significantly influenced by the Thesaurus? Unlike the other two, I don't know of any canonical anecdotes about it. – SJ + 04:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I know I read it, and I can remember exactly where: a weekend newspaper magazine. Normally I don't treat that stuff with a great deal of seriousness, but this was a simple answer to a question like "What has been your greatest musical influence?", and that could only have come from Grabowsky's own lips, not something the journo made up. But I've had a bit of a google search and nothing's turning up, so I guess you may as well delete it or at least tag it "citation needed". Cheers. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 04:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Got it! It was in the "Good Weekend" magazine in The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, 8 April 2006, p.13. A regular column called "Your time starts now", where a different person each week is asked essentially the same series of questions.

In answer to: The book that changed my life is ..., Grabowsky said: "Thesaurus of Scales and Melodic Patterns by Nicolas Slonimsky. Endless fun, and torture for the listener".

Not sure how we'd use that as a citation, as it's not online, but there it is. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 01:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Dutchman

Jack, I apologize for my multiple bites - I kept finding different discussions, over a period of several days as I happened to wander by. I haven't been searching out these (or you). Without now checking back, I think the one you've now responded to was the first one I had posted. The reason I addressed you personally there was that I've always respected your thoughts and opinions, and you had surprised me with your emphasis on English titles. It was definitely my thoughtless error to address you at a different page.
Then later I had coincidentally run across your comment concerning "I Pagliacci", which struck me as arguing pretty much the opposite of your position on the Dutchman. I felt that was worth pointing out; but it's not a good idea to go back around to remove earlier posts that otherwise might not have been made.

So again, I see that I've come across as being aggressive, and I'm very sorry for that. You're right that I do have strong feelings on titling, which frequently run counter to WP:UCN, which I see as "dumbing down" the encyclopedia and reinforcing readers' lack of knowledge and understanding. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

And I'm sorry if I accused you of initiating the multiple bites; that is the work of the user to whom I first addressed those remarks. Maybe all you've sought to do is rationalise the multiple discussions into one at the "big picture" place.

Just on the Pagliacci/Dutchman comparison: That discussion was about whether or not the Italian definite article "I" (plural of "The") is part of the name of Pagliacci - and, of course, it's not. The article is no more a part of the name than it would be if anyone referred to Der/Die Götterdämmerung (I'm not up on my German articles). That was the the whole discussion; it was never about whether we should call it "Clowns" (let alone "The Clowns"), and that's because nobody ever does. It's always given its Italian title, just as Il trovatore, La traviata, Cavalleria rusticana, Anna Bolena, Così fan tutte, Die Fledermaus, and many others are always given their original titles. Even Khovanshchina is always called thus despite being virtually unpronounceable for most Englischers (the catch there is that it's even more untranslateable than it is unpronounceable) - yet we always talk of Prokofiev's War and Peace, never Voina i mir, which is a piece of cake if you can get anywhere near "Khovanshchina".

(Back in 2005, there was an attempt to have us show an English translation of La bohème prominently in the lede. That was knocked on the head because (a) there would never be agreement about what it means, and (b) nobody ever uses anything but the original French title anyway.)

Some other works sometimes get the original language title and sometimes the English - Les troyens vs. The Trojans; Guglielmo Tell vs. William Tell; Die lustige Witwe vs. The Merry Widow; Un ballo in maschera vs. A Masked Ball; La fanciulla del West vs. The Girl of the Golden West; La nozze di Figaro vs. The Marriage of Figaro, etc etc. The balance varies from opera to opera. Der fliegende Holländer/The Flying Dutchman is in this category.

The issue then becomes: Where does the balance lie in any particular case? Obviously it's not always clear cut, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. And if people always agreed about these things, there'd be no need for such a policy as WP:Consensus. That's what it comes down to, every time.

My bottom line here is that I'm not convinced that Der fliegende Holländer is the preferred version in the English-speaking world. But I have exactly one voice here, along with anyone else who cares to make their opinion known. I'll happily abide by whatever the consensus is, assuming we ever get to the point of someone declaring "Game over; and the result is ...". -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 02:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

An interesting tour of the landscape - thank you. While I was away for a while just now it occurred to me - well, one, it's very dangerous to make generalizations, and two, this may not have a whole lot to do with commonly-used titles - it occurred to me that Italian and French operas are very rarely sung in English (as far as I'm aware), but German operas seem to be much more frequently done in English translation. And of course Russian operas, and other Slavic languages, are nearly always performed live in English (or French, where there's already an extant translation). It's understandable about Russian or e.g. Czech, for lack of singers, but I'm not sure why German is frequently translated. And I noticed that Ingmar Bergman's Magic Flute is done is Swedish. Maybe it's always a trade-off between sound vs. sense - that audiences expect the sounds of Italian or French, while German diction sounds close enough to English that they want to know what's being sung. (A propos of not much, I have two copies of the tenor aria from Martha - Plácido Domingo sings Ach so fromm, while Björling sings M'apparì tutt'amor.) Milkunderwood (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI?

Talk:Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia#Rename to "Australian Honours System"?. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Inherently better?

I am sorry to tell you that my country Japan is considered much better than your beloved Australia. Kotjap (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit: I am just sorry, Australia and Japan are the same, we share our values of democracy and other things, I am just sorry I snapped with you. I am quite stressed. Sorry. Please give me the honor of you accepting my apology. Kotjap (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you've misinterpreted my little joke. It was aimed solely at my wiki-colleague StuRat, and it quoted a word he had used in the previous thread about the safety of ships and planes. I was making no comment about Japan vs. Australia vs. any other country. I would never seriously suggest that any country is "inherently" better than any other country. Thanks for the quick apology anyway, which I of course accept. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 22:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

As a Kiwi I feel it's my duty to point out that being much better than Australia isn't exactly a major achievement, it still means you can be second worst in the world. ;-) Nil Einne (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, you've done your duty, now f**k off.  :)  :) -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 18:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Edward Clark

Marvellous work! A most informative article about a figure too little known. Tim riley (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim.

If I had known years ago what I know now, that article would have had a long history by now. But only one month ago I had never heard of Edward Clark (conductor). Ever. Which just stuns me, I have to say. His influence seems to have been colossal, yet he's somehow been put into the dustbin of history. Thank God for the internet, is all I can say. Without it, it would have taken me literally years to do all that research and track down those 100+ sources; probably it wouldn't have happened at all. And thank God for Wikipedia for giving us the incentive and the framework to do this work. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 10:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Excellent reading, great news! Thank you! - Now ISCM could be expanded a bit, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. Yes, ISCM has a very long way to go. Sometimes I hear people saying Wikipedia is finished because all the important topics have been covered. Hah! -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 18:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Tim Ferguson

I know the Doug Anthony All Stars made up a lot of stuff about their background, but Tim Ferguson really is a RMC-D (Royal Military College, Duntroon) graduate! I have restored the category and added this detail to the text, referenced to the Australian Army website which lists Ferguson as a "Notable graduate". --Canley (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, but no point remonstrating with me! Before your edit, the one and only reference to Duntroon was in the categories. It's against our rules to have people in categories for which there is no supporting text in their articles. And that includes, for example, a lot of people in LGBT categories. If there's nothing in the article to suggest a subject is anything other than straight, it's absurd to have them in an LGBT category - not even if it's completely true.

Thanks for adding the reference, which now makes the category perfectly appropriate. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 04:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh no, I certainly wasn't remonstrating with you, and completely take your point about it not being mentioned in the text, which was why I added it—I was surprised it wasn't and it makes perfect sense to remove an unreferenced category. Only reason I mentioned it on your talk page was because I thought it was an interesting fact, no offence intended, sorry if you took it that way. --Canley (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries. It was the exclamation mark, which I took to mean something like "Tim Ferguson really is a Duntroon graduate, you idiot!". Maybe I shouldn't be so sensitive. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 06:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

musical company
Thank you for adding a German cellist to the countless enjoyable biographies, and Chopin's Polish songs, first heard when I young. Enjoy the company on the German Portal's DYK! - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (19 March 2009, 8 February 2011)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the eleventh recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, it still applies, repeated in br'erly style. - See my talk for poem and pic of the day ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. I don't know what I've done to deserve this extraordinary outburst, but I appreciate your thinking of me. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 10:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The outburst was a year ago OTD, but still applies, especially recently for Edward Clark! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, him. :) I'm glad you liked it. That makes the effort worthwhile. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 10:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I also liked your moves from Solemnis to solemnis. Mozart wrote more than one of them, but the others are known under funny titles, so are many termed Missa brevis, several in identical keys, - perhaps redirects with the KV # would help? We have all these BWV, latest BWV 232a, - I felt it was needed, because that part has a different composition and performance history than the complete one, both just a start, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Emelie Hooke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexander Young (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Richard Strauss article

Jack, I don't know if you're watching Talk:Richard Strauss, but I've left a new note there - the organization of the article is a disaster. If you don't feel like fooling with it, maybe you know someone else. I don't know anything about Strauss, and have no interest in him; I was just looking for one composition date. Thanks. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I've posted at the CMProject now - someone will probably come along. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I've had a brief look. It's on my list. Thanks for the alert. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 04:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I so agree that the layout needs attention. I'd be happy to work with you on this if you are inclined. I can produce testimonials affirming that I am house-trained and won't steal your wallet. I hesitated to wade in as I seemed to detect a certain air of WP:OWN (I may be quite wrong, of course, and I hope I am.) Tim riley (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at it closely enough to detect that. But if I had, and if I had, I would have regarded that as an open invitation to change something, anything, just on principle. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 20:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Worst popes

The thing is that Alexander VI shows up on many "Bad Popes" lists, and I don't understand why I can't briefly explain some of the reasons why. Pius V is on fewer such lists, but many informed people would agree that he made at least one semi-catastrophic blunder. I agree that the Crusades tangent is somewhat unfortunate. AnonMoos (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The thing is that the OP quite specifically asked for the names that "historians generally consider" to be the worst popes. I imagine they used this form of words because if they'd just asked for the names of some of the worst popes, that question would rightly have been closed down immediately as outside the scope of the Ref Desk since it would require opinion and no doubt would have inspire debate. The OP went the extra mile and went beyond asking for what we think, and onto what historians generally think, and that surely means we have to not just have a brainstorming session where we're all shouting out names, but come up with some references for where historians have actually named these popes, and what their criteria for "worst" is.

The first response was spot on. The rest, not so much. Not at all, in fact.

If you say Alexander VI shows up on many "Bad Popes" lists, where are the links to some of these "many" lists? This is really a fundamental thing about the way we operate: There are exceptions, but our answers should not generally be "What I think" but "What the sources say", and most particularly where the OP has specifically and explicitly asked for sources and not just opinions (even if the sources themselves are opinion-based; at least they're not just our opinions). -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 19:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Whatever -- people often answer on the refs desks out of their general knowledge, and without footnotes, and I'm not really sure what the purpose is of a sudden attack of stringency in this one particular case. AnonMoos (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, we all answer out of our own general knowledge, but that's with stuff that is fact-based and can be simply checked. Where on earth does anyone go to find an accurate list of "the worst popes" or "the best presidents" or anything else that is totally subjective? If someone gave me a list of "the worst popes", the first thing I'd be asking is "Who says so? And does anyone else have a similar opinion? What does "worst" mean here? Is it about their lack of theological effectiveness, or about their personal failings, or both, or something else?".

Someone could be the worst ever in one particular respect, but still be seen as good in other ways. All we've given the OP so far is some names we've thought of, based on some of their misdeeds that we're personally aware of. Anyone can do this, but we are a reference service and the OP asked for references. Who says some other names we don't know about weren't far worse than the ones we do know about? Apart from the first respondent, we have failed the OP. That's why I was moved to hat the discussion. But I've been on about this general issue for literally years, so it's not a sudden attack of "stringency".

I fully understand (probably more than you could ever realise) how much people just want to help, how much they want to make a positive difference and make a worthwhile contribution - and I applaud those motivations. But that has to be tempered with just a drop of discipline. Or are you saying that you're reading between the lines, and the OP couldn't really care less about any references and just wants some names, any names, from any anonymous joe on the internet who cares to offer them? -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 00:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hugh Walpole

All right, clever clogs! Even Homer (and even Riley) occasionally nods, but I concede the point about the modifier. Not sure we need NZ in the lead as well as the main text though. The MoS enjoins us not to make a production number of people's origins unless it impacted on them in some conspicuous way. Ever thine. Tim riley (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adam Garcia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kiss Me Kate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jakov Gotovac, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kolo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Edward Clark (conductor)

Materialscientist (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Concerto for Two Pianos and Orchestra (Bruch) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Semyon Bychkov

Elsner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Joseph Elsner

European exploration of Australia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Barrow Island

Gordon Watson (pianist) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Michael Powell

James Matra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to New Holland

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Expansion of Catalogues of classical compositions

Hi there, I see you're basically the author of Catalogues of classical compositions. On the email list of the International Association of Music Libraries we've been discussing the need for a list like that for reference. When I pointed out that list, a few people voiced their disappointment at the lack of bibliographic information. As with most non-Wikipedians, they see Wikipedia with a "view but not touch" attitude. May I (and hopefully others) expand the list by adding bibliographic information? -- kosboot (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Well, as you seem to be aware that Wikipedia does definitely NOT have a "view but not touch" attitude, you know you don't need my permission to add to an article. The information you propose to add would no doubt be very welcome, subject always to the views of the whole wiki-community, but I don't want to give the impression that my approval is ever necessary for anyone to add to any article I write. Do your worst, or even your best, and all edits will be judged on their merits by others. That's how we work here. Thanks for asking, and happy editing. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 00:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! -- kosboot (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Beards and bad grammar

According to "The British Beard Club", "His beard is a man's most personal possession". Surely that should be, "A man's most personal possession is his beard"? --Shirt58 (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

<Page lurker interfering>Both seem equally grammatical to me; the former is slightly archaic, more interesting and poetic, the latter more businesslike and direct, less dense and a little easier to comprehend. As the BBC (that one, anyway) seems to have a bit of an "olde England" trope, it seems to work for me.</interfering> --Dweller (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Joseph Merk

The DYK project (nominate) 00:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

List of Companions of the Order of Australia - Preamble

Hi Jack - I would like to add the following preamble to 'List of Companions of the Order of Australia'. I have been adding this as a link to 'AC' and feel it would help explain the grade. What do you think. By the way, it was written by Pdfpdf who corrected me when I posted an incorrect explaination. What do you think?

"The Order of Australia is the only Australian order of chivalry. It was established on 14 February 1975 by Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia, to recognise Australian citizens and other persons for achievement, meritorious service, or for both. 'Companion of the Order of Australia' is the highest grade of this Order currently awarded.Saint Lucy (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 18:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

AC List - Citations?

I've just added the refs for 2012 Oz day AC awards. I also put the citations into the "Notability" field. (Sort the "Awarded" column and go to the bottom.) I can't make up my mind if the latter is a good idea or not. Do you have an opinion? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it would be a better idea if they were not in italics?? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with them being there, and no prob with the italics. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 17:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That lets me off the hook nicely. (Even though it was me who put myself on the hook in the first place.) Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Separate out the Honorary awards

But I've been thinking we should separate out the Honorary awards and have them in a separate table in the same article. Any objections? -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 17:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

"Any objections?" - A long list! But the relevant comment about my list of objections is: "Are any of them a problem?", to which I must initially reply: "Ummmm. Errrrr. (pause) Dunno." (Otherwise known as: "I have conflicting opinions.") The advantage of the current setup is that everything is in the one sortable table. What is/are the advantage(s) of putting them in a separate table? Yours in ignorance, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Why were you "thinking we should separate out the Honorary awards and have them in a separate table"? And, "What is/are the advantage(s) of putting them in a separate table?" Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Because they are intrinsically different. Australian citizens are just as ineligible for an honorary award, as foreigners are ineligible for a substantive one. They go into a separate category Honorary Companions of the Order of Australia. We have separate sub-lists for other awards. The full list is slow to load, and this would help. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 20:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It's probably not a diplomatic response, but ... I am ambivalent about "Because they are intrinsically different." I'm similarly ambivalent that "We have separate sub-lists for other awards." (Or maybe I'm indifferent?) In either case, these are not reasons I'd object to. (Or support, either.)

HOWEVER: What does interest me is "The full list is slow to load, and this would help." Yes, it is. But why would this help? The page would still be the same size, so why would splitting it make a difference? Yours (still) in ignorance, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Papal musings: 666?

Just while waiting to find out the name of the newly elected Pope, it occurred to me that his election occurred on 13 March 2013

13.3.2013 --> 112333 --> 1 1 2 333 --> 1 x 1 x 2 x 333 = 666.

I wonder what eschatologists will make of this. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 18:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

LOL. You have to take into account that the two 13s are like terms and cancel each other out. Rivertorch (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I make up whatever rules permit me to get the result I want.  :) -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 19:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

And now I see we have a man from the Southern Hemisphere for the first time. Or, as it's often known, the Nether World.  :) -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 19:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Careful young man! "I make up whatever rules permit me to get the result I want." is a well-established modus operandi, but as part of your Risk Assessment, did you factor in the "specialness" of the domain? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC) ;-)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Albert Field (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Morningside and Durrington

Anonymous (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Venus and Adonis

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The Oz family

Hullo. Any relation to Frank Oz? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimir891 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm his cousin Jackoff.  :) -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 00:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear! I had a mouth full of food and wine when I read that. I don't now! (And right now I'm looking for materials to clean my screen and keyboard.) But thanks for the laugh! Pdfpdf (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Any time I can be of service ... -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 20:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Schelomo

I saw your new deletion of the dead link. Did you happen to find my comment on that talkpage? Milkunderwood (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's what drew my attention to the problem. Marking dead links as dead is not unhelpful, but I think it's better to remove them altogether. I added a template calling on all our wiki-brothers and sisters to come forward with abundant references. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 22:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

"Listening to these two distinctively different initial interpretations of Schelomo on disc is not unlike looking at a mountain range from two opposite perspectives." :D Milkunderwood (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Half swim

Thanks for your explanation on the phrase "half swim" at the language desk. I've left a reply and another example of the phrasing, if you're interested. Dismas|<sup>(talk)</sup> 05:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at WikiProject Opera

I'm writing to members of WikiProject Opera who have been active on the talk page over the last year. We currently have a proposal to add infoboxes about individual operas to their articles. As this would involve a fairly major change from our current practice, and lead to a potentially lengthy transition, it would be helpful to hear the views from as many project members as possible. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera#Opera infoboxes. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Little treat ;)

Hello Jack, March 20 marks the nth year of my conception. Thus, I would like to treat you to a treat. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and happy anniversary of the day your parents ... er, did ... er, it. I hope they enjoyed it. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 19:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

LOL. THAT was... celebrated... Nine months ago. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 07:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I just realised I got my conception of conception wrong. I thought of "conception" as a synonym of "birth". :P ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

:) -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 08:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

IPA

Regarding you comment on the IPA here, I think you'll find that good grammars of foreign languages are the best source for correspondences. I wasn't taught the IPA explicitly until I took Linguistics 201 for majors. But I was able to pick it up from junior high school grammars of French (the first language I studied formally) that I found in the library. You'll find Mario Pei's books and Anthony Burgess's A Mouthful of Air good introductions--but they may be well under your skill level. (I assume, for example, you know that хорошо is /xəra'ʃɔ/. You'll also find there is a huge difference in standards and usage between British and American treatment of a-type vowels, rhotic vowels, length and diphthongs, etc. Don't be surprised if you see /sej/ or /sɛɪ/ as the transcription for "say" in GenAm or RP, respectively, although they are identical so far as I can tell. You'll find the IPA is the best system, but it is still subject to local preferences and interpretations. μηδείς (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for all that information. But doesn't that exemplify the problem. As long as I've been around here (coming on 10 years), there have been editors who are familiar with the intricacies of IPA, who yearn for their fellow editors to also become familiar with it, and use it. But I have never seen any indication of how one goes about learning it. And I'm talking about a simple method that any joe in the street can easily come to terms with. Having to consult grammar books (assuming they're even readily available, and geared to one's particular idiolect) or attend linguistics courses - these are simply not on for the general user. People want and need something quick and simple - otherwise, what the heck is the point of a system that is so arcane that only a small handful of people are ever realistically expected to ever become familiar with it (which is exactly the situation we do have)? The descriptions we're given in our articles are close to incomprehensible, e.g. Ɔ (IPA) reveals:

• The open-mid back rounded vowel, or low-mid back rounded vowel, is a type of vowel sound, used in some spoken languages. The symbol in the International Phonetic Alphabet that represents this sound is ⟨ɔ⟩. The IPA symbol is a turned letter c and both the symbol and the sound are commonly called "open-o". The name open-o represents the sound, in that it is like the sound represented by ⟨o⟩, the close-mid back rounded vowel, except it is more open. It also represents the symbol, which can be remembered as an o which has been "opened" by removing part of the closed circular shape.

I mean, really! -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 11:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

That is a particularly egregious example you give. It really is a technical matter that people who don't have a good grasp of learning the phonology of two or more languages or dialects are not going to be able to get a grasp on on their own. In person instruction is best. I learned it by reading introductory level linguistic books, but I was exposed to Rusyn and Spanish from before I can remember. It really is a college level subject. If you do know Russian or German and you read that the vowels of hoffen, вот, and cost in Received Pronunciation are /ɔ/, that is meaningful. But calling it "open" is really subjective and totally unhelpful. Wikipedia is not a good place to look for instruction; people have their agendas. I tried adding a sentence long note to the IPA for English article explaining that the distinctive sound of "wh" for those who differentiate it from "w" comes from an original aitch-double you sequence spelt that way in Old English and still pronounced that way by some. I was told the comment was not necessary and that we weren't there to teach people or make comments on Old English and was reverted endlessly until I gave up. If you want to study on your own, you should either look for a dictionary or grammar of Russian or another foreign language you know that uses IPA, and get the standard Intro to Linguistics textbook by Fromkin and Rodman, which is very approachable. μηδείς (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Gair Affair

Dearest Jack. Just brilliant. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, thanks Shirt. Glad you enjoyed it. Actually, I always assumed we had an article on it, until I discovered we didn't. I remember the episode very well, but as always I learned a hell of a lot more about the details while researching the article than my poor old memory was able to provide. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 10:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I always assumed we had an article about The Split, until I found we didn't.

Is it OK with you if I nominate this for a WP:DYK?

--Shirt58 (talk) 09:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

PS: I now have the admin buttons. It's truly scary. It's like being a new user again, but with permissions to majorly farnakle up. And instead of just worrying if I'm going to be the first editor blocked for long-term persistent sickly-sweet niceness to everyone, I now have to worry about being de-sysop-'d for excessive and unnecessary cautious hesitancy in using the admin tools.

Please, go right ahead with the DYK nom. I'd be interested to see what reactions it gets on the way thru.

Me, I won't be taking any part in the discussions, as I'm currently very jaded with the whole DYK thing and plan to stay jaded indefinitely. Forget I just said that. I'm in an out-of-sorts space at the moment, have been for some little while, and it's affecting my view of everything. But in the meantime, others are welcome to use my appendages in any way that gives them pleasure. Enjoy.  :) -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 09:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Charles Morgan (Australian politician) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Frank Browne

Parliamentary privilege (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Frank Browne

Rita Hunter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gwyneth Jones

Robert Macklin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Courier Mail

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Use of spaced ndash template

You recently replaced a spaced ndash rendered as "&nbsp;– " with {{spaced ndash}} to separate the birth and death date. This doesn't work well in the lede section of articles, as it messes up the tooltip preview: Templates are suppressed in the tooltip preview when one hovers the mouse cursor over a wikilink, and instead of seeing a dash, the reader sees a mysterious blank space or run-together text. The same is true of the {{Convert}} units-conversion template. If your browser doesn't support tooltip previews, you'll need to install one that does, such as Firefox or Opera, to see the effect, and tooltip previews don't work unless one is logged in. As a general rule, I avoid using inline templates in the first 500 characters, or so, of the lede section text. — Quicksilver<sup>T @</sup> 16:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Why should I install something that enables me NOT to see something that I currently do see without said something? Why don't the IT guys fix the problem rather than asking users not to use a feature that is provided for their use and is perfectly suited to the vital dates that appear in every article on human subjects? I have used spaced ndash in probably thousands of ledes over about 5 years.

Thanks for your feedback, but what you say is not nearly enough for me to stop using spaced ndash in ledes. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 19:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

There's really nothing for the IT guys to fix. Some templates, such as Infoboxes, generate very large displays that wouldn't fit in a preview. Since there's no way to predict how much screen space a template will require, it was clearly a logical decision to suppress display of all templates in tooltip previews If there's a choice between using a template and a bit of simple HTML in the lede, I choose the HTML code. — Quicksilver<sup>T @</sup> 18:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

A big thank you

Thank you for your contributions to Culture of Oregon, an article I began a few years ago. Thanks to you the article is improved. I was able to finally get this one started. Bruinfan12 (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure my contribution was minimal, but you're welcome. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 06:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

Please stop your poking at Baseball Bugs. You've made your point, and there's no need to belabor it. I understand that you've been civil and not made any outrageous attacks, but the conversation is likely not leading anywhere productive. You've expressed your thoughts, and now it is up to the other person to consider those thoughts. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  19:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't "poke" people. I engage in reasoned discourse, which is what I'm doing with Bugs. "Now it is up to the other person to consider those thoughts" - yes, well, when an appeal to adopt a more reasonable position is met with "I don't apologise when I'm in the right", we can see the type of consideration being given. Precisely none.

What is your real reason for coming here? -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 21:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

ODM of Oz => Oz honours system

I don't know if this falls into your field of interest, but ...

In case you were not aware, there is a proposal to rename "Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia" to "Australian honours system" at Talk:Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia#Proposal to rename article to Australian honours system, and it has attracted (unexpectedly to me) lengthy discussion. Even if you disagree with me, I'd appreciate it if you looked at it and added your opinion. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lancelot Ware, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mensa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Edward CLark

A really fascinating message on my talk page. Am away from home for a week or so in the Lake District, but will gladly go to the British Library on my return to London to follow up the question of the dedication. Well worth a check. Tim riley (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Am back in the metrop now, and will toddle down to the British Library, probably tomorrow, to look up this intriguing question. Will report back soonest. Tim riley (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking forward. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 11:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Very pleased indeed to tell you that the BL came up trumps. The dedication to Clark is there on the title page:

Eduard Clark zugeeignet

I was going to add this, but then I thought perhaps you should have the pleasure of doing so. For the reference the bibliographical detail is

• Webern, Anton (1935). Fuga (Ricercata) a 6 voci: No. 2 aus dem "Musikalischen Opfer", für Orchester gesetzt von Anton Webern. Vienna: Universal-Edition A. G. OCLC 461971074.

Regards. Tim riley (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Outstanding work, Tim. Wikipedia thanks you, and I thank you. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 12:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Apology

Jack, I apologize for saying words that you found hurtful. That was not my intention. But my intentions don't matter. What matters is that it hurt you. And for that I am sorry. ←Baseball Bugs <sup>What's up, Doc?</sup> carrots→ 22:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Bugs, I accept your apology. Thanks for stepping outside your comfort zone and making the gesture. It means a lot to me. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 22:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I'm kinda slow, but sometimes the dim bulb finally comes on. :) ←Baseball Bugs <sup>What's up, Doc?</sup> carrots→ —Preceding undated comment added 01:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Update

Apparently that dim bulb has gone out again. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[pleasantries]</sup> 23:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

But it's now sputtered back into life once more. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[pleasantries]</sup> 03:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

For this. This machine does that, it's horrible and I can't figure out how to change it. --Dweller (talk) 10:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

homophobe

It's good to see somebody's paying attention.

As a side mater, would you have any interest in this book http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/5779308195/ref=oh_details_o05_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 as reading material? My Russian teacher brought it to class one day, and I decided to buy a copy because it was so nicely illustrated with glossy paintings. I ordered a copy from Amazon, but it turns out it was a reprint with matte illustrations that don't interest me. If the text is something you would be interested in (or know someone who would be interested in) I would gladly mail you the book. μηδείς (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, soror, but I have too many unread or partially read books as it is. I have given away or sold way more books than I currently have on my shelves. It would get a brief skim, then gather dust until the inevitable culling. Not that I mind going through that process yet again, but you shouldn't have to pay for it. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 21:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it will get the same treatment from me. I will try reselling it on Amazon. Returning it would be pointless given the shipping charges to Finland. μηδείς (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Another thanks

Hello JoO. Thank you for your post here [9]. I was trying to think of some reply along those lines but you stated it better than I could have. Along with death and taxes another inevitable fact of life is that when someone says "I don't mean to be racist/sexist/homophobic" the next thing they do is racist/sexist/homophobic. Thanks again and have a great week. MarnetteD | Talk 10:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeh, my antenna always goes up when someone starts out with something like "I'm not a racist/sexist/homophobe but ....". Thanks for the feedback, MarnetteD. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 10:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

John Hollingsworth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to When the Bough Breaks

Peter Abeles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Samson and Delilah

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Nessies and apologies

Hi Jack. Thanks for the Nessie Barnstar, but I didn't properly flag my contribution here as a joke. I'm still a Civil Serpent, and my employer is still technically a very component woman I frankly admire, who has had a rather difficult job since she was young and who continues to perform her role to this day, despite being fifteen years older than retirement age.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

But clearly, you wish it were not so, since jokes always scream their bitter and sardonic truths, for those who have ears to hear. I therefore deem it not to be so.

Now go and enjoy la vita bucolica. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 11:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wish it was so, and Amen to that. Dispela i no laik wok long gavman, as they say in Tok Pisin. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Holst's Perfect Fool

Can I pick your brains? Though The Planets is performed everywhere I wonder if other Holst works that are well-known in the UK are regularly played in other countries. Have you often spotted the ballet music from The Perfect Fool in Australian concert programmes? Or the wonderful Egdon Heath or Beni Mora? Just after a flavour, really, in pursuance of a current overhaul of the Holst main article. Grateful for any thoughts. Tim riley (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tim. I may not be the best to ask about this. There’s nothing like being there in the flesh when it comes to memories, but for various reasons, my personal attendance at live concerts has been extremely sporadic for quite some years. I was a very frequent concert goer in my younger years, then life sort of took over. I’ve been to a lot more opera and ballet in the past 3 decades than orchestral concerts or chamber/piano/lieder recitals. But I’ve always maintained an active interest in what’s going on, via radio, the web and music magazines. Thanks to ABC Classic FM, I get to hear a lot of concerts I can't get to, but when you have music going all day every day as I do, memories can get very blurry.

That said, let me tell you that Holst has been vastly neglected, in my experience of Australian concert going. The Planets gets a run reasonably often, but I am struggling to remember a single other work that I have ever heard played at a concert here. I’m certain I’ve never heard St Paul’s Suite, The Perfect Fool, Egdon Heath, The Hymn of Jesus, Brook Green Suite, Beni Mora, Hammersmith, any of the concertos, or the Choral Symphony in concert. My knowledge of Holst’s works comes almost exclusively from recordings.

I seem to have a vague memory of something that the wonderful Stanford Robinson played with the Queensland Symphony Orchestra back in the late 60s when I lived in Brisbane – or maybe I’m confusing that with Delius’s Brigg Fair. Probably.

Best I can do, Tim. Sad but true. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 13:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

That will do nicely, thank you. It rather confirms my vague suspicions and is definitely useful as background, which was what I was after. Thank you, Jack. Tim riley (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Austin Symphony Orchestra

The article Austin Symphony Orchestra has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Most likely not notable in terms of WP definition, I can't find anything more than routine local coverage in the local paper.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. gwickwire<sup>talk</sup><sub>editing</sub> 01:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

"Oh, Bach fach"

ORGAN MORGAN: Oh, Bach without any doubt. Bach every time for me.
MRS ORGAN MORGAN: Organ Morgan, you haven't been listening to a word I said. It's organ organ all the time with you.
(I don't think Under Milk Wood is out of copyright yet, so "fair use" asserted.)

Vaughan Williams' Rhosymedre adaptation, lovely version here. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Help:Score

Help:Score may interest you.—Wavelength (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, thanks Wavelength, I will make use of that. -- Jack of Oz <sup>[Talk]</sup> 21:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Local Hero Award winners

Category:Local Hero Award winners, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Goodbye, Mr. Chips (1969 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Browning Version (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Math vs. Misc

I typed in WP:RD/M and didn't check to see that I landed at the right desk. I've moved the question. Thanks for the gentle reminder. Dismas|<sup>(talk)</sup> 05:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)