User talk:JackofOz/Archive 10

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Hello again; I hope you'll forgive my bothering you with a few questions. In squaring List of classical pianists (recorded) with your newest revisions to the general list, a few uncertainties arose:

• Winifred Atwell Her Wikipedia article indicates that while she excelled during classical training, her career revolved around popular piano, most notably boogie. If that's so, does she actually goes on the classical pianists list?

• Yes, you're probably right. She was of course squarely in the frame as a boogie player, but she did record some light classics like Clair de lune, etc. (I know because I used to own a copy of that LP.) But these were one-offs and she certainly isn't representative of classical piano music playing, so I'd have no qualms if she came off.

• Winifred Burston (Winifreds seem much in the news here.) I could find no indication that she recorded, but all that radio activity makes me wonder whether her playing didn't find its way onto records, if in no other form through issue of broadcast performances, perhaps for the local market only. Do you know of any issued recordings?

• No, I'm afraid not. She is now renowned primarily as a teacher, although she did a lot of performing in her early career, and she regularly broadcast live recitals for the ABC for many years after she became a teacher. There may be some recordings, but I don't know of any.

• Valda Aveling has recorded, but I can't tell whether she's done so only on harpsichord. Do you know of any piano recordings?

• I'm pretty sure she recorded some Percy Grainger 6-hand piano works with Benjamin Britten and somebody else. The Zanzibar Boat Song seems to ring a bell. I'd say there'd be other piano recordings, but don't quote me. She could play Tchaikovsky #1, Rachmaninoff #2 and Beethoven #5 in a single concert, so it would be a shame if she left little by way of piano recordings.

• Adele Marcus evidently made no commercial recordings, but a group of acetates discovered after her death has emerged on an issue to support a foundation in her name. On the strength of that and her significant stature, I went ahead and added her to "recorded." Do you concur?

• Yes, indeed.

• Ignaz Pleyel had drawn my attention before, and I was surprised then, and upon briefly revisiting the question today, to find no mention of his having performed as a pianist either in his Wikipedia article or on the Net. His son (and partner in the piano business) Camille is the member of the family mentioned as a noted virtuoso pianist. I don't have printed references at hand; do you have better info documenting a piano performing career for Ignaz?

• No, sorry. My old Grove V refers to him as a "composer and pianoforte maker", and that article has no mention of any performing career.

Since posing my awkward questions, I've done a bit of desultory digging myself regarding Pleyel in printed literature, and I came up empty again. Meanwhile, a few days ago I snapped on the radio just in time to hear the announcer say, "That was some-rather-undistinguished-thing-or-other-I-forget for clarinet by Ignaz Pleyel. We don't hear much about him today, but when he was alive he was a celebrated clarinettist." That's hardly authoritative, but it fits with the heavy representation of clarinet music on presently available discs devoted to Pleyel, and I'm beginning to think, counterintuitive as it may be, that he really didn't play piano, except possibly to the workaday extent that was typical of a composer/kapellmeister of his day. I'll keep looking, though. Drhoehl (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help! Drhoehl (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

My responses are above. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again! Drhoehl (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not want to imply that all clear ideas are true or intelligent, but having non clear ideas can not be considered as a clear cut sign of genius either? No need to look at the Sokal desaster, just take Sartre' s "philosophical" writings, say on Descartes. Great writer Ernst Bloch and great philosopher Heidegger were both stupidly wrong in simple politics, dumb "bad writer" (as an old 68er at my university once told me) George Orwell was not. Joan Didion has always been superior in writing and thought than la Sontag. Kenneth Rexroth' s late "japanese" love poetry is his best. Japanese and Chinese poetry (even Zen) is never muddled, but crystal clear. Pound' s good sentences are crystal clear. His muddled thinking about Malatesta and stuff is just bullshit city metropolitan size. --- To say something for dark ideas and complicated writing, mystical experiences, some poetry set aside, you need a correspondence theory of truth. If in thinking about the way things in the world are, there has to be an esthetic correspondence between the chaos in one' s head and the chaotic world, between style and form of writing and the ideal and idealistic form of the world, then unreason has to rule. But this correspondence theory need not be true. --- Clear ideas may be wrong, complex ones may be right, if made clear. Muddled thought which stays muddled is no thought at all. I admit we are not capable to think clearly about nearly everything we encounter in life.--- But it should be tried in philosophy, I am very hardcore analytical about that, although I once absolutely hated Ernst Tugendhat for always saying: Das versteh ich nicht (I don' t get it) when confronted with more or less fancy ideas, and certainly some intelligent ones too, it has to be admitted--- I also think that analytical philosophy had/has? a lot of "mysticism of clearness" built into it.---The Tractatus of Wittgenstein is bad Ersatzmysticism and also simply wrong (picture theory of sentences). The analytical thinking I like is more like Hegel' s thinking in his talks to "high school" pupils (and in the Phänomenologie and in lots of places), completely clear and intelligent. But his Wissenschaft der Logik is neoaristotelian conceptual mysticism, nothimng else. Which still is not Verboten and Marx loved it to pieces with great success.--Radh (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is lost on me. See my response at the Ref Desk thread. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not need to disagree with you, but isn't it bad how difficult it is to try to say anything and be understood. Bis dann--Radh (talk) 06:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Now, that's where I disagree with you. If you have a clear thought, you can usually find a way of expressing it so that others know what you're talking about. This is judged by their responses. If, for example, you talk about blue diamonds, and they respond about green cats, then you can tell that you have not communicated sucessfully, and you need to try a different approach. Your post above includes so many allusions that really I just don't have any idea what the main idea is you're trying to convey. So I wouldn't even hazard a guess what it is you're trying to tell me. I had better luck with your original post at the Ref Desk, but even there I was confused. You were talking about people who are capable of articulating complex ideas clearly, but being judged idiots for it. That seemed very illogical to me. As I said, the people who tend to be judged idiots are the ones who seem incapable of articulating complex ideas clearly. Do you not agree, and if not, why not? I'm not interested in wrong vs. right, btw, but simply in communicating ideas that can then be discussed once both parties are agreed exactly what it is they're discussing. We don't seem to have quite reached that first base yet. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What did I think about? In large parts of philosophy (Adorno, Heidegger, but also others) to express ideas clearly is "not done" and considered to be a sign of stupidity. These people think, it is a sign of superior intelligence to express oneself at least in writing as complicated as possible. Of course it is illogical, I did not want to say anything else. I guess it is a cultural divide thing between America and Europe: I am so customed to this style of "deep" thinking that I imagine the "logical" position (I only arrived at after long struggles with myself) is rare and nearly everybody defends the "deeper" position. And seen from the "deeper" position clear analytical thinking (in philosophy) truely is a sign of idioticity. I do agree with your position that this is ridiculous, but this is (not the only, but a leading) European tradition --Radh (talk) 11:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, they're welcome to it. I have seen tracts in which every single word is a multisyllablic monstrosity - and that includes "a", "the" and "is" - where clearly the writer has set out to make it as dense and turgid and opaque as possible, all apparently in the name of some glorious hallowed tradition of "higher learning" or whatever. I have absolutely no truck with such rubbish. It might be considered good philosophy, but it's very bad writing. Very bad indeed. Say what you have to say as clearly and as simply as possible, or don't say it at all, that's my philosophy. Maybe I'd be considered a heretic in some circles, or intellectually as light as a feather - but if so, those are circles I have no interest in being associated with. Not all traditions deserve to continue just because they're traditions. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes and it is good of you to have kept trying to make your position clear, I tend to assume people to think this and that and sometimes I am dead wrong. (I would have answered earlier, but I had to do some things in the real world).--Radh (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI: I began to tone down the Gilbert Levine page, although I except the edits to be reversed at any point. I'm with you on the "Sir" issue. DJRafe (talk) 06:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thank you for contributing to my "greatest" poll on the Reference Desk! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC))

		The Special Barnstar
		In addition, your selection for Greatest Musician, Beethoven, tied for first! Congratulations! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 05:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

On 17 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Symphony in C (Bizet), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm planning to put this one next on my list of RAAF Chiefs' articles to improve with pics, citations and additional sources (meaning I may do a fair bit of rephrasing to what's already there). Since you did most of the prose, thought I'd just check you didn't have any further plans for it yourself. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No plans, Ian. Please free to improve it in any way you can. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

[1] Is there some WP-wide ongoing edit war on WP about date formats and date linking? I've noticed a lot of edits seem concerned with dates. (this is not a criticism of you at all, I just thought you might know since you seem well informed on the issue) --Surturz (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Surturz. It’s been deprecated at MOS for some time:

• Dates (years, months, day and month, full dates) should not be linked, unless there is a reason to do so. ... Dates should not be linked purely for the purpose of autoformatting (even though in the past this was considered desirable).

It’s also covered at WP:CONTEXT:

• Chronological items—such as days, years, decades and centuries—should generally not be linked unless they are demonstrably likely to deepen readers' understanding of the topic.

Some users are not happy about it and there’s an RfC going on at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). -- JackofOz (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Yonty Solomon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I was so worried that people would just think I'm wasting time and making up music that doesn't exist. I will feel like such an idiot if I have to email like a high school band teacher or a community college music professor. I have spent probably 50 hours listening to march musics looking for it, that now I'm beginning to question if it even has the word "march" in the title. I'm confident that either now, or I can repost in a couple weeks if the thread dies, at the humanities section and someone can have a look. Do you think maybe you could put a request in a relevant wikiproject? It would have zero weight coming from an IP guy. Thanks so much, I know you'll never forget the song either if we ever find it! Thanks so much 65.41.148.101 (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm just as fascinated as you are now. I tried again at Melody Hound, and this time I kept getting Hava Nagila. Could this be it? It's not a march, but it's very intense in parts, and I can imagine it being played in a special band arrangement (more likely by a school with a significant Jewish element than a non-denominational one), although the triplets don't seem to belong. If that's not it, I predict one of the following:

• the piece is not anyhere near as widely known as you believe it to be
• you've given us the wrong notes
• my brain has died. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The actual notes are all a half step higher. I tranposed it from Bb to A so that maybe someone can play it easier on the piano (all white notes since I stripped out the sharps/flats).

The melody is exactly the same, and only someone with perfect pitch would be bothered by my transposition up a half-step. So if you play the original melody on a piano or a keyboard, then play every single note a half step higher.

It would then be something like

A C B ggg A E D B A C B ggg A

Bb Db C AbAbAb Bb

I dont trust my latter transposition since I didn't play it on anything.

But I'm positive on the sequence of notes from the piano...

A C B ggg A E D B A C B ggg A

I've played this 30 minutes today and am still 100% certain the sequence of pitches is 100% correct. I'm beginning to believe it might not have the word "march" in the title, or I would have certainly found it.

I dont know if you are familiar with music theory, because I would have just given it as tonic, mediant, etc... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonic_(music)) that way you can transpose it into any key but keep the pitch sequence intact. But I know lots of physics, so thats my preference, I still use "note names" too. 65.41.148.101 (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Also I have this page on my watchlist, so you can just reply here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.41.148.101 (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This user is an advanced pianist. and This user is of Irish ancestry. wow and wow, my last name is Kelly, are we related? I have a music theory question. I play Fur Elise on piano about 5 hours a week and have been practicing 2 years. I use a metronome-like click-track that I listen to on my iPod that makes 32 clicks per second and I use that to try and "slow down" my perception of fast music (and yes I switched over to piano about 3 years ago from lighting fast guitar and lightning attempt drumming). I am a speed pianist, but I only play one song, but I play that song so fast and errorless (I am never off by more than a few milliseconds, compare that to the blink of an eye is 50-200 milliseconds.).

My actual passion in life is medicine in which I plan to study neurology. From a pianists view, is this highly deprecated form of music? or is it just not even music at all? From this exercise I do, it has lots of added benefits. It is very soothing/relaxing/stress-relieving. Plus I have perfect pitch on my piano (I may be calling it the wrong thing, I can blindfold play a note and know which note it is). Plus my brain processes stuff faster (oh and too I'm a speed-reader).

Is this a very bad thing? Would it get me killed in a group of actual musicians if I told them that I frankenstein my music and break all the rules? 65.41.148.101 (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Flaminglawyer, and Yuletide Felicitations to you, too. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thanks for helping with some of my Czech related questions, as well as in other topics. Vltava 68 10:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If I knew how to say "thank you" in Czech, I'd do so, Vltava. That shows how much I really know about the Czech language. I do bluff my way through some questions, but I don't get away with it all the time and my abysmal ignorance was starkly revealed in one of my recent Czech-related answers. But thanks, anyway. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant Czech as in relating to the Czech Republic. Vltava 68 22:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Great work producing the Blom article. I wish it had been here when I did the recent Mozart Grand Tour thing, it would have given me a better insight into Blom, whose Mozart I used a lot, but couldn't get to like. Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Brian. I've owned Grove V since about 1968, and have used it on literally millions of occasions. My local library doesn't have New Grove (or even Grove V for that matter; I live in a fairly small town), and for one reason or another I don't have online access to it (I really must do something about that one day). So, Grove V is a very dear friend of mine, and I have Eric Blom to thank for that. I sometimes come across utterly inexplicable gaps in our coverage of notable people, and this was one of my recent shocks. Then it occurred to me that I had always been so focussed on reading and using the dictionary that I'd never stopped for a moment to wonder about its editor and his personal story. Obviously, others have had the same experience, which, I think, speaks volumes about the quality of the work. He seems to have had the knack of writing sometimes very contentious text (such as the extraordinary rubbish about Rachmaninoff) without readers thinking "Who is this absolute wanker and where can I find some information about him?". Hence, no Wiki-article on Eric Blom. I looked online but couldn't find very much about him. He didn't have an article in Grove V either - or so I thought until I was looking in the Supplementary Volume for something else, and there it was. It's all about his work, nothing about his private life, no mention of any marriages or children, and I still have no idea what prurious conclusions to draw about that. There's not even "he never married" (which is often a code for "he was gay"). I must keep tracking this part of his life down. It's probably all there in New Grove. On my next visit to a place that has it, I'll definitely look him up. Thanks again. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Just read your message. They have New Grove in my town library, so next time I'm there I'll see what it has on Blom. In the article you mentioned that Blom edited the Master Musicians series and commissioned some young up-and-comings to write some of the books. From my copy of Mozart, here is a list of the composers and authors. How many of these actually "came up"?

• BACH — C. F. Abdy Williams
• BEETHOVEN — Marion M. Scott
• BRAHMS — Lawrence Erb
• CHOPIN — J. Cuthbert Hadden
• DEBUSSY — Edward Lockspeiser
• ELGAR — William McNaught
• GLUCK — Alfred Einstein
• HANDEL — C F Abdy Williams
• HAYDN — J Cuthbert Hadden
• MENDELSSOHN — S. S. Stratton
• PURCELL — J A Westrup
• SCHUBERT — Edmondstoune Duncan
• SCHUMANN — Annie W. Patterson
• STRAUSS — Neville Cardus
• TCHAIKOWSKY — Edwin Evans
• VERDI – Dyneley Hussey
• WAGNER – Robert L. Jacobs

Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. Well, he certainly didn't discover Marion M. Scott, Alfred Einstein, Neville Cardus or Sir Jack Westrup, who were well-established music writers and critics. Edward Lockspeiser had written books on Berlioz (1939) and Bizet (1948), so he was also established by 1951. Dyneley Hussey was a poet and critic. I've heard of Edwin Evans (not the cricketer), but I thought he was a singer (or maybe I'm getting confused with Edgar Evans). The others all have redlinks and I've never heard of them, so if Blom was the one who gave them their "big break", it didn't seem to have led anywhere. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

[2] Nice work. I fully support the removal of unnecessarily redundant tautologies. --Surturz (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Watch it, buddy, you're skating on thin ice there. My red pen normally known no bounds, but you've been saved on this occasion by the warm and benificent glow of the Christmas spirit that has infused me from places far and wide.  :)  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

On 11 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Werner Reinhart, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 11:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The one in your user page does not work; watchlists are supposed to be private to the user who "owns" it. Vltava 68 09:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, waddaya know, that's something I never knew, Vltava. I always assumed other users' watchlists were available to all comers, in the name of transparency. Their list of contributions certainly is. But I just plugged your username in, and got my own watchlist back. Thanks for the info, and I'll be amending my userpage. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey there! I got the impression, from a comment you made at the Reference Desk, that you may have a Guinness Book of World Records handy. I was wondering if I could prevail upon you to replace the [citation needed] over at Minor Scale with an actual Guinness reference, since I'm tragically Guinness-less and far too lazy to go to the library. The original phrasing of the sentence in question was: "[The Minor Scale Explosion] is rated as second to the 'British Bang' disposal of ordnance on Heligoland in 1947 by the Guinness Book of Records." I have no idea what edition of the book this was taken from, or if the statement is still accurate. But if you feel like checking, I'd greatly appreciate it. There's also some discussion at Talk:Minor Scale#Minor Scale/Heligoland over how accurate Guinness is on topics like this, so if your day is dull and devoid of explosions, feel free to weigh in there, as well. Regardless, thanks! --Fullobeans (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I've responded at Minor Scale. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Marvelous, thanks. No Minor Scale, though. The plot thickens... and then explodes. --Fullobeans (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I always love to learn local slang. For that reason alone, my six weeks in Australia were a great treat. The one phrase I couldn't hear without wincing, however, was "Chrissie prezzies" or even just "prezzies". (I was there from mid-December to the end of January, 1985.) It's the kind of talk I would expect to hear only addressed to babies or small, yappy dogs wearing hair ribbons and faux-fur coats. Oh yes and, having now been warned, I promise never to walk into your study. Happy Christmas to you and those you love. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, no, it's just one of them things we say.  :) Funny that we never say "Merry Chrissy", but we do refer to "Chrissy" in less set contexts - "Are you having time off at Chrissy?", and that sort of thing. Yuletide felicitations to you too, dear Bielle, and may you get lots of "Chrissy prezzies". -- JackofOz (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correct spelling of "Chrissy". The only times I have seen it written before, I have been the one doing the writing. I dislike the season, but love its music, as long as it is not American pop or American pop versions of real music. My current (today's) favourites are Christmas with Chantecleer [3] and the Barra MacNeils' The Christmas Album II [www.barramacneils.com] and Barra MacNeils. ៛ Bielle (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The Nugget seems to attract some attention. I notice you have edited some of HC Coombes' article before. There is a persistent vandal who is dropping words like 'bong' inappropriately on the page. I've deleted it once before, but i think someone who knows what they are doing should get involved .. DDB (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"Fallible and human"? **swoon** Keep on keepin' on, Jack, and if and when your endurance flags, know that I (and doubtless others) appreciate your personal dose of humanity: illuminating and compassionate intelligence shining through helpful information thoughtfully contributed. If it means anything in this warped world, you have an admirer in a fellow editor who sojourns a ways down the road from Armageddon. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 09:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh. No, you can usually get away with "Me too" (as long as you don't spell it "Me to"). "I also" is just too Jeeves-like for my taste. But horses for courses. Well, thank you, Deborahjay. That is a lovely thing to say, and I appreciate it very much. God rest ye merry, Deborah, and all the best for 2009. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Fred Burrows is now blue. Of course, the whole of the sentence after Fred Burrows is redundant, as you can see that it is blue. DuncanHill (talk) 06:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

G'day. Could you please review the changes made by user Blenkinsop regarding the above article. I do not believe that the material he is presenting is useful for the article and verges on WP:trivia. If it is to remain it is in the wrong spot. I can't revert his material again as I shall break WP:3R although he has already. Any comments you have would be be appreciated. Gillyweed (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Jack. I've been wondering whether I should Clark Gable's son in the Others section considering he was born four months after Gable's death, but I don't know if he would be considered notable enough to be on that list since he's not known for anything other than being Clark Gable's son, per WP:INHERITED. The reason I'm making the proposal on your talk page instead of the article talk page is because no one seems to hang around it. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Crackthewhip775. No, it's a list of people who are notable, and who were born posthumously. He meets the second criterion, but not the first. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Christmas, Jack. Keep up the good work! Eebahgum (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jack, With regards to the above text. I know Geoff Bridgeman and knew WEG. Geoff is still concerned about the numbers of fake WEG's out there and the high prices they command. In the past, Geoff has verified several fakes and the text deleted is a direct quote from Geoff to me. If a seller, yes the seller, won't let Geoff verify the poster, his advice has been and always will be don't buy it. The text is valid Jack and should be re-instated as a warning to people out there about the fakes. Vic 3136 Best Wishes Zippomk2 (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Zippomk2. No idea what you're talking about. This is my diff. All I did with that para was to reformat the date so that it didn't appear to be linked, which is deprecated. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note at my talkpage, JackofOz. Same to you. Let's catch up in the new year, perhaps with the same cast of four, yes? More soon.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 04:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. That's neater than going through the dab page, which is all I thought of. (I do get slightly grumpy when people "correct" spellings and dates to the american formats. I suppose I should chill out.) Machina.sapiens (talk) 07:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, not at all. Chilling out certainly has its place, but we must all remain vigilant about our precious spelling. As you correctly pointed out, there's no such thing as a "center" in Australia, but we have to deal with the fact that our article on performing arts centres is spelled in the American way (and it would be silly to have separate articles for "performing arts centres" and "performing arts centers"). It's easily addressed, fortunately. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It does! Great work, and happy new year to you, I hope it is a delightful one (frankly I think 2008 stunk). One of these days I have to try the other side of the planet to see what New Years is like in mid-summer. Keep up the fine writing! Best, Antandrus (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, Antandrus. I was remiss in not wishing you HNY, so all the best to you and those you love. This year, mid-summer is not much different from mid-winter down here. Sydney was stinking hot (par for the course) last week, but Victoria hasn't quite realised it's supposed to be warmer weather by now. Our time will come. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

All the best for the New Year, Jack. It was -20 when I went out to look at the night sky at midnight on the 1st: cold, clear and quiet. I could smell our wood smoke, and hear the faint hum of snow tires on the main road about 4 kilometers away. A coyote howled and something snapped in the woods at the side of the house. It was a lovely moment, but once my nostrils began to stick, it was time to go back in to the fire and the cognac. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that could be the start of a great short story, Bielle. Or even the great Canadian novel. Well, what are you waiting for? Hop to it, times a-wastin'. Lovely to hear from you, and many good wishes to you and yours, Bielle. Cheers from a still unseasonably cool Down Under. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It was a complex pun, if a play on ideas rather than simply a play on words can be called a pun. I was trying to write my own "great start" to a new year. Thank for judging that I succeeded. I'll write the "Great Canadian Novel" when you finish the "Great Australian Piano Concerto", the one that begins with the rust-red earth that turns to deep gold . . . ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Jack: may I wish you all the best for the year ahead, also. I hope the first few days of the year have not suffered due to the delay in my greeting...if I had had foreknowledge of my general holiday-induced laziness which has kept my computer switched off, I would have offered an "If I don't see you before, Happy New Year"-type greeting, just to be on the safe side.
I am quite concerned to hear you have not yet managed the complete works of dearest Kathleen. What treats you have missed! What inspiring prose has passed you by! I can only hope that 2009 will offer you full opportunity to wallow in her magnificent offerings. I have my treasured volumes close at hand at all times. But just say the word, Jack, and I will post you one!
Happy New(ish) Year. Gwinva (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Without trawling through my archives (I hardly ever do that, which sometimes makes me wonder why I bother keeping them at all), I seem to recall you saying that you'd got your hands on one book and you were going to be giving me a critique, or something, once you'd finished it. Maybe you did and I've forgotten. In any case, my life thus far has been totally Kathleen-free. I don't lie awake at night wondering what it might be like to have actually read one (or more) of her books. It's more just idle curiosity. So, if you're willing to send me one, I'd appreciate that muchly. I promise to look after it with as much care as she put into her writing of peerless purple prose. I can send you my address via email if you like. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. In November 2008 I created the page George Howard Clutsam. I called it that because that was the full name of the person to whom it refers, and in general full names are less liable to ambiguity, although I agree that that isn't likely to be a factor in this case. You've just changed it to George Clutsam, which is fairly harmless, but seems to me pointless. Is there some policy you were following which caused you to make this change? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, SamuelTheGhost. Our policy is that biographical article titles reflect the best known name of the subject. Thus, we have an article on Edward Elgar, but not one on Edward William Elgar (except as a redirect page), because nobody except government record-keepers referred to him that way. And it's George W. Bush, not George Walker Bush. Conversely, we have an article on John Charles Thomas because he was known professionally and generally by all three names, not just as "John Thomas". Clutsam is known as "George Clutsam", never as "George Howard Clutsam". There's no issue of disambiguation with George Clutsam, but if there were, the better approach would be to have "George Clutsam (composer)" and "George Clutsam (astrologer/taxidermist/whatever)", because using the middle names would assume people knew that the one with the middle name Howard was a composer and the one with Murgatroyd was a taxidermist, which would not, I suggest, be a useful assumption to make. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I understand what you say. You use the words "Our policy", presumably meaing WP policy, so I'd still be interested to know where this is stated. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's all here in glorious detail. Enjoy. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No big deal, but I was wondering why in this edit you changed
"[[Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire|GBE]], [[Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath|KCB]], [[Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George|CMG]]" to
"[[Order of the British Empire|GBE]], [[Order of the Bath|KCB]], [[Order of St Michael and St George|CMG]]".
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Pdfpdf. OK, fair question, There are no such articles as: Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire, Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath or Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George. There are simply redirect pages to, respectively: Order of the British Empire, Order of the Bath, and Order of St Michael and St George. It's fine to use redirects; they're there for that purpose. But my philosophy is: why use them when we don't need to? Why take a circuitous route to an article when we can go there directly? Redirects show up as green links on my screen, whereas direct links are blue or purple. There's an instruction you can give to make redirects green, but for the life of me I've forgotten what it is now, sorry. I can spot green links from 20 metres away, and while they certainly make an article colourful, it also makes it look untidy. Hope that answers your question. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, whilst there is currently no article specifically about the individual grades of the order, it's not entirely impossible there might be in the future, which would now mean that these ones would have to be individually pointed to the more specific place. Using the redirect also makes it clearer precisely what the abbreviation stands for - if someone hovers over the link they'll normally get a tooltip. David Underdown (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Very true. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Jack, I can't fault your facts or your line of logic.

However, I don't have the same opinion as you.

At the risk of riding one of my hobby-horses (yet again), in my biased opinion, wikipedia is not about "need"; it's about conveying information, being clear, being helpful, being easy to use, etc.

So, although I agree that the redirect is not "need"ed, I don't think that is the point.

I think it's more useful to inform the reader, as effortlessly as possible for the reader, what things mean.

"GBE" means "Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire". It does not mean "Order of the British Empire". I don't really think that the fact that this information happens to appear on a page that happens to have the title "Order of the British Empire" should be a constraint. I also don't think that the reader should be forced to click on the link, go to the OBE page, and be forced to read it, all before they can find out what "GBE" means.

I particularly think this when, the way it was set up, if they placed their cursor over the "GBE", up popped a box saying "Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire".

So, that's my 2¢ worth. What do you think? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(P.S. I agree that black, red, blue AND green does indeed lead to a very colourful page. But then, you could always turn the green off ... Pdfpdf (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for the invitation but I certainly won't be turning my green links off (even if I knew how to anymore, which I don't). I set it up that way deliberately to enable me to identify redirects on sight (about which I have a sort of love-hate, more hate than love, relationship). But I can see your point when it comes to postnominals and I'll give that due consideration in future.

It's different in the body of the article, though. We often see things like: "In 1937 he was appointed Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George", in the following versions:

• A. In 1937 he was appointed [[Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George]]
  • visual: In 1937 he was appointed Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George (this looks green to me)
• B. In 1937 he was appointed [[Order of the Bath|Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George]]
  • visual: In 1937 he was appointed Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George (this looks blue to me)
• C. In 1937 he was appointed Knight Grand Cross of the [[Order of St Michael and St George]]
  • visual: In 1937 he was appointed Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George.

I dislike A intensely, on 2 counts. It makes for a rather long link, and is green to boot. B is acceptable on the colour score, but is still too long. These both demand too much attention from the reader. C is my strong favourite. It gives the reader no less info than any of the others, while being neater and cleaner in appearance. It's the visual counterpart of conciseness as opposed to verbosity. If we ever have an article on "Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George", I may have to revise my opinion. But until that day comes, we work with what we've got. Which do you prefer? Or is there some other way you like? Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Jack: Perhaps it's bold to the point of being rude, (in which case I apologise), but in my biased opinion, the "conversation" seems to diverge here from the question you asked - perhaps even the question you asked me - so I've inserted my reply here.

"But I can see your point when it comes to postnominals and I'll give that due consideration in future." - I could not ask for more. Thank you.

"It's different in the body of the article, though." - Yes, I agree.

"We often see ... " ... "I dislike A intensely, on 2 counts.:

• "It makes for a rather long link," - I agree that the link is "rather long" - in my biased opinion, "rather too long".
• "and is green to boot" - Well my friend, that's your choice, and hence your problem. (i.e. "not my problem"; yes, it would seem that "NIMBY" is still very alive and very well.)

"C is my strong favourite." - Again, I agree, but my agreement has nothing to do with colour. It has to do with the way the sentence is constructed and presented. In the GBE situation, it is a case of "What-the-F-does-GBE-mean". The case you quote here is completely different situation, and hence my agreement.

(BTW: I have already descibed previously why I don't like "B".)

"If we ever have ... " - Yes, I agree with that, too.

"Which do you prefer?" - Option "C"

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

By-the-way: "Thanks for the invitation but ... " - fine by me, but please note that it's your choice to have green links, so henceforth I'm not going to pay a lot of attention to you whingeing about green links ... (Good god! I'm starting to sound like my parents!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And regarding a later statement addressed to others:

"I see nothing wrong with ... " - I'm afraid I agree that: "The Knigth Grand Cross article doesn't really tell you a huge amount ... ".

I think option C is a far better solution. 13:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirects are easier than piped links when editing, WP:R2D suggests that they are perfectly permissible (even encouraged). Overall feeling is that it's better to link the name of the whole honour (at articles that are at GA and FA for example), or it breaks it up into two parts, the grade and the order, when both are just as important. Colournig redirects green is your own choice, the vast majority of readers won't have that set (particularly anons). Some redirects are set up from typos, or improper forms such as Officer of the British Empire, which is incorrect, it's valid to amend these, but most of the time, using the redirect is the most natural, and most flexible way to proceed. David Underdown (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Anons etc won't know the difference anyway, so their opinion is (in this context) irrelevant. But we do have a "Knight Grand Cross" article. I see nothing wrong with:

• In 1937 he was appointed Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George.

What do you think? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I say, consensus seems to be for linking in full, and we're not going to change that by talking on one user page. A number of WP:MILHIST articles have gone right through to FA with the full-linking in place, and no-one's ever brought it up. The Knigth Grand Cross article doesn't really tell you a huge amount that you wouldn't be abel to work out from teh order article anyway, and again breaks waht is a single honour into two chunks. David Underdown (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I was focussing on the highlighted part of "it breaks it up into two parts, the grade and the order, when both are just as important". But I'm happy to go with consensus on this issue, so I'll retreat once more to my antipodean cave and try to be a good boy in future. Thanks. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading this, and in the light of our interchange about Clutsam above, could I remind you of the old saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can remind me, by all means. But I can't quite see the relevance of the saying to our previous discussion. There was a need to change the article title, in accordance with policy, so, in that sense, it was "broke". And you seemed to agree with my rationale on that occasion. Has anything changed in the intervening days? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There was nothing that couldn't equally well have been addressed by creating a redirect from "George Clutsam". You seem to have the only system in the cosmos which displays redirects in a different colour. I have moved articles, but only where the title was downright wrong, or where it was necessary in order to allow proper disambiguation. If an article just lacks the title I feel is most appropriate, I add a redirect. This policy creates less waves than yours. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course a redirect would have achieved the end of people finding the article they're looking for. No argument there. I guess it's the principle I'm concerned with: why name an article "John Winston Howard" or "Edward William Elgar" when they're almost never referred to that way? That, to me, is as inappropriate as having a redirect from "Edwzzz Elgaqq". The information about whatever their middle name(s) is/are is in the article, it doesn't need to be in the title. Just because someone created a "George Howard Clutsam" article doesn't mean it has to be set in stone forever. The Move function has a purpose, and on this occasion, I used it for an appropriate purpose, one that's fully supported by our naming policy. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(moved to a new topic from the previous thread)

Greetings! Regarding this edit, despite your assurances that "But I'm happy to go with consensus on this issue, so I'll retreat once more to my antipodean cave and try to be a good boy in future.", I'm afraid that it seems to me that you didn't take your own advice. From past experience of your edits, you have seemed to me to be very sensible, very reasonable, very rational, and also display a sense of humour. As I've said before, if you don't like seeing green links, then turn the *#@! things off, but please, do not inflict your prejudices about seeing green links on others. As discussed above, redirects are a perfectly acceptable tool and are encouraged by MoS. I have no desire to damage what has, to date, been a very pleasant, harmonious, enjoyable and, at times, humourous, working relationship. Please re-consider your point of view. Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Pdfpdf. First up, I have to say that the last part of your post seems to be a threat, which one might interpret as "If you don't do what I ask, I will damage our working relationship". But maybe you're suggesting that I, through my alleged truculence, am the one in danger of doing damage to the relationship. That still puts you in charge of the relationship, and the one setting conditions. Either way, it's an inappropriate tone to use for what I assume was meant to be a friendly reminder, from one equal to another, so you might like to consider your wording in future.

OK, to the substance of your complaint. What I have agreed to is this: I will allow links related to postnominals, such as "[[Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire|KBE]]" to remain, and I will not convert them to "[[Order of the British Empire|KBE]]". The reason is that people who hover over a linked postnominal are most likely to want to know what "KBE" means - as a postnominal. They probably don't want to know the entire history of whatever the order is - but if they do, they can click the link and off they go.

Nowhere have I ever agreed, nor would I ever have agreed, to not adjust other links. I will improve WP in any way possible, and if I happen to come across a link that could work better, I will fix it. Whether I detect it through a green link or any other way is immaterial.

Let's examine the edits in question. What does hovering over Shakespeare tell us? It tells us "Shakespeare". Well, duh! In this case, hovering has no benefit whatsoever, so the only possible benefit of the link - prior to my edit - was to use it get to the article on whoever this "Shakespeare" is. What I have done is to help our readers. They can now hover over the link and see at a glance that it is, indeed, the William Shakespeare they probably thought it was, and not some other Shakespeare (of which there are many). Previously, they would have had to click the link, get to William Shakespeare, then use the back arrow to get back to Helpmann. I've saved them some time and trouble. Same deal for Handel and Gounod. You should be thanking me.

The next one was to change Stratford Festival to Stratford Shakespeare Festival, the actual title of the article and the actual name of the festival. Again, this is in a different class of link than the ones related to postnominals, and it's a helpful edit in the same way as the one above was. True, it's usually known as simply the "Stratford Festival" because it's widely known that Shakespeare came from there. That still doesn't make the previous version of the link helpful except as a means to get to the article; hovering over it told readers nothing they didn't already know.

I'm not going to justify every single comma of my other edits, but Romeo et Juliette was misspelled (it's Roméo in the French title) and Australian Opera was a redlink (it's now Australian Opera).

Perhaps a bit more assumption of good faith would be a useful addition to your armoury. Cheers.

PS. I forgot to acknowledge your compliment ("From past experience of your edits, you have seemed to me to be very sensible, very reasonable, very rational, and also display a sense of humour."). I thank you for those kind words, and I can assure you nothing has changed. You're a fine judge of character, I have to say.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

PPS. I wasn't aware till just now that you'd reverted my edits (in your apparent frustration - unfounded as I believe it to be - you made no mention of that fact). You've also changed "Australian Opera" in 1981 to "Opera Australia". It was known as the Australian Opera till 1996, so calling it Opera Australia in 1981 is anachronistic. You might wish to consider reinstating my edits, unless you had some argument against what I said above. In the absence of any corrective action from you, and unless I can be persuaded that my edits were in any way inappropriate, I will be reinstating them myself. That's not a threat, but a promise. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm. It now might be my turn to find a deep antipodean cave and retreat into it.

She-who-must-be-obeyed will be unimpressed if I respond right now; my response will need to wait until after sunset. But in general, once again I think I am in the same position as earlier, viz: "Jack, I can't fault your facts or your line of logic. However, I don't have the same opinion as you."

And also, regarding your first point, my intent was: "I (pdfpdf) don't want to damage our relationship by harping on about this and being a pain-in-the-neck". I didn't realise that there were at least three ways it could be interpreted. Thanks for the advice.

More later. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As is often the case, there seems to have been assumptions based on misunderstandings.

I had (wrongly, it seems,) assumed that your edits were all about, and only about, "green links".

Your response demonstrates otherwise. viz:

"Whether I detect it through a green link or any other way is immaterial." - Yes, I agree.

"Let's examine the edits ... " - "Shakespeare" - Agreed. "Same deal for Handel and Gounod" - Agreed.

"You should be thanking me." - Agreed. OK. Thank you.

"The next one ... " - Agreed.

However, I am still a fully paid up member of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" society. I continue to believe that they weren't "broken", and hence didn't need "fixing".

Perhaps I am being overly pedantic, but in this sentence: "I will improve WP in any way possible, and if I happen to come across a link that could work better, I will fix it.", I would disagree with your use of the word "fix". I believe you are "improving", not "fixing".

"Perhaps a bit more assumption of good faith would be a useful addition to your armoury" - Now this one I disagree with. It was making a (wrong) assumption that got me into this mess!

"You're a fine judge of character, I have to say." - I assume you are not expecting me to disagree? (Oh dear, I've made yet another assumption! ;-)

"You might wish to consider reinstating my edits" - Yes, I might. As it happens, I have considered it, and I have made another set of edits. Although not the reinstatement of your edits, I am expecting they will meet with your approval.

Now, I have to get back to installing electricty into my deep antipodean cave. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Your edits are acceptable to me, and we have what I'd call a good outcome.

Just a word on "fixing" things. When I "fix" something, it does not necessarily mean whatever was there before was utterly "broken". It could be anywhere from the grossest inaccuracy, to a barely detectable nuance of language. It could just be a comma, the absence of which had only minimal impact on the comprehension of the sentence in question, but the presence of which just removes any possible ambiguity. In short, I regularly refer to any of my edits as "fixes", and you'll see it widely used around here to mean "change". All edits are "changes" of one sort or another.

Finally, on green links. I'm almost sorry I ever mentioned them above, because it seems they're not as widely known or used as I thought, and it led to my motives being misread on this occasion. But I find them an extremely useful tool, and I will continue to have them turned on. I'm surprised they're not that well known, though. I heard about them via a general announcement on the talk page of your Adelaide colleague User:Timeshift9, who is very active, particularly on politics/government-related pages, and has regular correspondence with other users. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That was nicely worded - I hardly noticed that you were saying: "Yes, you are being overly pedantic." ;-)

Once again, I can't fault your facts or logic. However, this time I share your opinion. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Re green links: Actually I'm glad you mentioned them - I was disappointed you couldn't remember how to turn them on. I'll ask Timeshift. (Yes, we've amicably crossed paths several times.)

On the subject of "turning things on", I've found all sorts of useful things on the "my preferences" page under the "Gadgets" tab. (i.e. I actually use some of them.) I thought the "green links" switch might be in there, but can't identify it. Maybe it's a browser dependent thing? (Rather unimaginatively, I continue to use IE.) Which browser do you use? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. In case you're interested, I find the following very useful:

• Navigation popups, article previews and editing functions popup when hovering over links
• HotCat, easily add / remove / change a category on a page, with name suggestion
• Open external links in a new tab/window

I also have the following turned on:

• Change the "new section" tab text to instead display the much narrower "+".
• A clock in the personal toolbar that shows the current time in UTC
• Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page
• refTools, adds a "cite" button to the editing toolbar for quick and easy addition of commonly used citation templates. (But haven't made much use of it.)
• The JavaScript Standard Library, a compatibility library for browsers that lack full support for JavaScript 1.6. This includes Internet Explorer, Opera, and Safari.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Re your series of silly questions on RD/M, have you ever wondered who creates all those conspiracy theories, and what their motive for it is? :) Grutness...wha? 05:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

${\displaystyle a+b=ab}$

Whoever you are, if you'd like to explain what on Earth you're talking about, I'd be prepared to make some meaningful reply. Otherwise, please don't make enigmatic, pointless, incomprehensible, and anonymous posts on my talk page. Thank you. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite aside from the fact that a × b = ab. Orderinchaos 10:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What announcement on my talk page? I've never seen a green link on wikipedia that I can recall! Timeshift (talk) 10:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Good Lord! Is it possible I've had a completely unprecedented memory failure, Timeshift? I suppose it had to happen eventually. Sorry if I misattributed you, but I was sure it was on your talk page that I saw a post telling all and sundry about green links and how to turn them on. It required some special command that I've totally forgotten, then you had to restart your computer to get it going. It worked brilliantly first time, and I've used green links ever since to spot literally thousands of bad redirects. It's the best tool. This would have been roughly 12-18 months ago.

I'll see if I can track down where I read about it, and let you know. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jack! I did a search on "green links" and got a lot of irrelevant results (some of which were rather interesting!) An hour later I got to the very last one, which seemed it might be useful. This was the end result. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That looks something like it. "Monobook.css" definitely rings a bell (being a techno-dummy, a lot of terms mean bugger all to me), but I don't recall using "color # ...". But if it works for you, that's great. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• See User:JackofOz/monobook.css. DuncanHill (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there you go. Thanks, Duncan. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Gough is now aged 92 years, 193 days - he passes Frank Forde as longest lived Aussie PM in two days - have you got a section for his article prepped? Paul Austin (talk) 07:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but thanks for that. Feel free to be bold and add the info yourself. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I notice the media are saying he claimed the record today - he only ties it today - he *passes it* tomorrow. *sighs*. Paul Austin (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

JackofOz: I know that I must be the only person in the whole of en:wikipedia with this, so I looked it up before decapitalising *Opus* & *Op.* in order to have an immediate answer to the question I was sure would be coming! After finishing reading/editing the article, I was going to leave a note on Chopin's discussion page, but you beat me to it. I still will as I am not finished with this long article.

Please check the following:

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:lcnDub8e8H0J:www.library.yale.edu/cataloging/music/capital.htm+should+opus+op.+be+capitalized&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Cordialement,

Frania W. (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Frania. Some queries:

• Why is the style presented in that site necessarily of any relevance to what Wikipedia does, or any other reference work does? Yale can do what it likes for its own internal purposes, but most English language reference works have always had, e.g. Rhapsody in F minor, Op. 328. This is certainly the predominant style used in WP, but I’ve seen a significant number of exceptions. Enough for me to ask, here, whether there’s ever been any consensus about the issue. It seems the process is only just getting started, so you might like to add your comments there. (That applies to anyone else reading this, too.)

• The examples given in the 2nd box are all in other languages, except for one case (Concerto in A minor), but it gives no guidance about Op./op. For the German ones, I would have thought that any noun that doesn’t start with a capital is misspelled, but as I say, it’s irrelevant to the English language issue. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

JackofOz: Left a note on Chopin's discussion page + one at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (music). Best to you, Frania W. (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do computer sites have to be as clear as mud, so easily useable, that doddery old goats like me become panickingly confused at all the Lingo--while on the subject, what are ' Tildes'

I only wanted to ask concerning the town called' WELLINGSLEY' in Mass; U S A what was the origin of the name. My interest, there was in Shropshire a family and Manor 'Wellingsley'---- Colin F —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratt-rattie777 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry about the delay. My phone line was down for 6 days, so I couldn't go online.

Not sure why you're asking me the question about websites, or the one about the origin of Wellingsley. Maybe you could direct these questions to the Language reference desk.

A tilde is the symbol that looks like this: ~. The key is usually on the top left hand corner of the keyboard, and you need to use the Shift key. Type 4 of them (~~~~) after your post, and the system will automatically insert your user name, date and time. That's for talk pages and reference desks only, of course; not for articles proper. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)