User talk:JackofOz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).


HISTORY

Contents

[edit] Helen Mirren edits

It might be better to explain that in the body of the articke rather than just using the tag. People will see her title, and thing either the titling or tag are incorrect. Describing the declining of the Honour might bridge the gap and explain matters better. Maybe you can find a place to add when she has declined title, with a citation. That would be awesome.Arcayne 08:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you getting back to me in a timely fashion, Jack. Regarding the Helen Mirren investiture. I think it prudent to reference within the article the process by which she refused one investiture for a lower ranking, but later accepted a higher one (I didn't even know that was or could be done). I don't think we can include her in a category that defines her without including a summary or whatnot of the original declination (and maybe reasons, which might make for noteworthiness) and the subsequent acceptance. You seem like a reasonable enough fellow, and I think that if you still genuinely disagree with me on this, there might be others who disagree as well. We can remove the category listing and discuss it on the Discussion page until some concensus is reached.Arcayne 19:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karl Marx

Hey, Jack. Caught your interesting remark at the Humanities Desk. This is translated from de:Karl Marx (Komponist). No clue whether it helps, but here it is, for what it's worth:

Karl Marx (* November 12, 1897 in Munich; † May 8, 1985 in Stuttgart) was a German composer and educator.

Karl Marx first studied natural sciences, and later musical composition with Carl Orff and Siegmund von Hausegger among others. In 1929 he was appointed professor for compositional technique at the Akademie der Tonkunst, Munich. From 1939 to 1945 he taught at the Johann-Joseph-Fux-Conservatory in Graz. From 1946 until given emeritus status he was professor of composition at the Musikhochschule Stuttgart.

He composed orchestral works, concerti, chamber music, piano music, works for organ, cantatas, numerous choral works and lieder set to words by German poets. Among his primary causes were his compositions of music for young people, which were well received in his day.

[edit] Works (selection)

  • Rilke-Gesänge (Rilke Songs), op. 1, op. 6 und op. 11 for mixed choir
  • Drei Chöre (Three Choirs), op. 46 set to Fritz Diettrich
  • Heitere Verse (Cheerful Verses), op. 54 set to Wilhelm Busch and Eugen Roth
  • Raube das Licht aus dem Rachen der Schlange (Rob the Light from the Serpent's Throat), op. 57, Cantata set to Hans Carossa for solo baritone, mixed choir and orchestra

Take care. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


The other Marx
Thanks, Jack, for that information, and to Sluzzelin for digging it out. I find it incredibly difficult to imagine a Karl Marx working with the Nazis! How on earth was he received when he was introduced to people for the first time? I shall now look for an Adolf Hitler as an agent of the Comintern! Again my thanks. Clio the Muse 06:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Of Truth, Facts and Cucumbers

I promise, Jack, for once I'm sending you a note involving absolutely no wiki-politics!

Rather, I was rather intrigued by your post regarding your interpretation of what a "fact" is, in the recent "Wittgenstein" discussion.

I've been thinking about it, and I feel that for the sake of not raising a row, I may have been acting intellectually dishonest with you by sloughing off any possible difference of opinion between us.

The fact is that I'm having a quite a bit more trouble accepting what you said on the matter than I let on.

I just cannot accept, as you seem to be arguing, that what is a "fact" is defined entirely by popular understanding, rather than the "truth" of the matter. Unlike what I believe to be is your position, I can't accept the existence of a "false-fact" as being anything but an oxymoron.

Take a cucumber. (Quite the segue, eh?:) I'm quite certain that if asked whether a cucumber is a fruit or a vegetable, somewhere in the area of 90% of the general population would assert with confidence that a cucumber is most definitely a vegetable, and definitely not a fruit. Yet in truth, a cucumber is a fruit, not a vegetable.

Now, according to your interpretation of what a "fact" is, being that such an overwhelming majority...pretty much a consensus of the general population believe a cucumber to be a vegetable and not a fruit, by implication then, it would now be correct to assert that it's a "fact" that a cucumber is a vegetable, while in "truth", it's a fruit.

Is a cucumber, then, "in fact" a vegetable, while "in truth" a fruit?

Take it easy, Jack.

Lewis Loomis 05:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that I understand better how wiki works, and how everything is "etched in stone", so to speak, in the your page's history, I took the liberty of deleting my last paragraph, as I think it would be impolitic to leave it there. Now that you've read it, if you feel it more appropriate to respond by email, by all means. My apologies if I was overstepping my bounds.
With regards to the "fact" thing, it would seem that what you seem to be defining as "fact", is what would seem to me to be more appropriately termed "dogma".
Alas, the chef's of the world haven't yet formed a multi-zillion dollar organization and level of immense authority to enforce their dogma, and persecute those who dare question their decidedly pro-vegetable interpretation of the status and nature of the all-important cucumber, yet one can only dream of the magnificent utopia a chefocracy would be.
I believe there was once a great man who once said "Sometimes a cucumber is just a cucumber" ... or at least something like that.
Sorry, I'm just in a bit of a loopy mood, as you would put it. :)
In any case, more fully understanding your view, I now can't help but say I disagree with it ... but what healthy friendships don't have their share of violent disagreements such as these?
Take good care, Jack. Looking forward to a vicious rebuttle! :--)
Lewis Loomis 12:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Betty Hutton

Hi, We have never put additional notes on the Notable Deaths page. Part of the appeal of the article is its clean lines and uniformity. I'm quite happy to omit the entry until the date is confirmed, but I don't support the addition of notes. Let's see what others think? WWGB 04:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keeping calm on ref. desk...vs. tolerating anti-semites

Folks, the person in question below is DILIGENT, not Dweller. I feel awful for pointing in the wrong direction -- please help me correct it. Jfarber 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the note of reality on the ref. desk this eve, Jack. In my defense, I DO believe that such discussions are fun and harmless...and intended only to pre-empt Dweller DILIGENT from yet another drift into his anti-semitic screed. It was petty of me to try to wave rules to do so, especially by making a statement that I would not stand by if made to others. But Dweller DILIGENT has brought down the caliber of the desk, in his various guises (Barringa, etc.), and dragged us down with him...and his antisemitic slippery ways are pissing me off and hurting me personally (yes, I'm Jewish, and he's making me feel pretty unwelcome on the desk, which is a shame).

I'd be happy to see someone else figure out a way to get him out of there; the anti-semitism is hurting me pretty badly, and it forced me to stop using the desks as a poential space to direct my middle school students, lest I get in hot water professionally for utilizing a space with such shrilly, school-inappropriate language and attacks as his. Pretty soon, it's going to be him or me. Anything you can think of, from blocking to more subtle tactics, would be especially appreciated. Jfarber 03:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, this time for the quick response. I suppose the anti-semitism itself doesn't bother me that much -- its the trolling, and what MUST be a deliberate obtuseness, because i believe those ARE personal. For example, see our exchange on Dweller's talk page, or the fact that, over the last few hours, the TITLE of the relevant reference desk question was changed to accuse me BOTH of something I did (change the title to include "not a reference question, which we've discussed) and something I would never do, and that seems pretty egregious (editing his TALK page, as if that was bad, when all I did was add a plea for him to leave off.) And where is one supposed to say "I didn't do that" without falling into the baiting trap of letting the ref desk become a space of interpersonal attack? So I let it go...but such sneaky tactics, and now PERSONAL attacks in PUBLIC spaces -- both linguistically, to try to twist my words, and now literally, in the titles of the ref desk -- are harder to avoid, and seem more directed at me, than the way someone might feel about a race or group. Jfarber 09:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for butting in and cluttering your talk page, Jack. The user currently signed in as Leasing Agent (formerly user:Barringa, among others) created a dialogue on his talk page switching his own signatures, to and fro, from Leasing Agent to Dweller. I've informed Dweller. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Sorry about that, I'm a confused user. I still would like to know, however, are you saying that Barringa, Leasing_Agent etc. is Dweller in disguise? ---Sluzzelin talk 11:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Jfarber, you might like to correct these assertions about me. --Dweller 11:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


I will -- my sincere apologies for confusing the usernames. Folks, the person isn question is DILIGENT, not Dweller. I feel awful for pointing in the wrong direction -- please help me correct it. Jfarber 14:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fletcher Jones

Hi, I like the article and he is certainly an important Australian.

Would you mind adding some references to this so that it meets the requirements laid out at WP:ATT? If indeed the whole article is sourced from the Australian Dictionary of Biography, then there is a very useful template to add to the article - see the Ausbio template.

Thanks for adding a great article about an important Australian, Garrie 01:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy St Paddy's day to you. Of course, we're all Irish on that one special day ;)....
John Carne Bidwill uses the template {{tl:Ausbio}}, there are a few others... pretty much if Project Gutenberg of Australia has an entry for FJ, it's probably the easiest one to use (in that, I know it's name ;-^) )Garrie 00:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jenufa

Hi. Just a note to say that, although we know this opera as Jenufa, it was never renamed by Janacek and is performed under its original title in its native country, see, for example, the results of this Google search. Best. --GuillaumeTell 18:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rebecca

Hello

Just a small point really, you seem to have altered the Rebecca article and your edit summary stated "he was called Max, not Maxim". Well, yes, but in actual fact everyone else in the book refers to him as Maxim. It was only Rebecca who called him Max, and in fact the heroine thinks it sounded "terrible, racy". So, really, I think you'll find that all the "goodies" in the book refer to him as Maxim. Just thought I would draw your attention to it. RegardsLuckyles 16:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A favour to ask...

Could you have a word with Loomis? He respects your opinions, and right now he's spinning his wheels; he just can't seem to let the matter with Clio drop. He seems hell-bent on getting to one of two outcomes—either we all snap to our senses and acknowledge that Clio is a Nazi apologist (or possibly that she's just driven by hopelessly 'misguided naivité'), or he's going to keep badgering her – and anyone who suggests he's misjudged things – until he gets blocked for continued, persistent attacks.

I hope you can help him find a third way. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts. I would be surprised indeed if the majority of parties who might benefit from your remarks did not have either my or your talk page watchlisted; I don't imagine it will be necessary to lead them by their noses to your comments. (I reserve the right to dust your words off and pass them around in future disputes, however—possibly prefaced with "A wise man once said...".) Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help desk "agression"

Yeah, I was sorta uncivil with my suggestion, but it really bugs me that some people just direct anons and IPs to articles and hope for the best. Thanks, AMP'd 19:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#looking for a important number, can't locate?

Regarding your query. There are articles on pwn and Owned. In short, it's a deliberate subcultural slang usage of a common typo ; "e pwns you all" more or less means "the mathematical constant e is better than any and all numbers that you have put forward." Thus, "This userpage comment is really just an excuse to say how much I really enjoy reading JackofOz's Wikipedia Ref Desk contributions. They are always insightful, wise, and witty. Above all, they both inform and at the same time respect not only the person originally asking the questions, but also the other people suggesting answers," could be reduced to "JackofOz pwns Wikipedia:Reference desk".
See also:

--Shirt58 14:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jack of Oz, and (perhaps bold, definitely bold, marginally bold and not quite bold) thank you baby for your reply.
Your reply made my day - big smiles all around the possums in the Shirt household.
Mmm. Dark cloud in an otherwise clear blue sky, however: what's the situation with you and Loomis? Looking at the archives, you two so seemed to be wikifriends for so long. I'm worried that it's going to escalate from your user:talk pages to all those template wiki:ACRONYMS...
Anyways. Thanks again. --Shirt58 14:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coming out on the Help Desk

Jack, thank you for coming out on the Help Desk in response to the question about "baby". I am ashamed to admit that I logged out before providing the answer directly above yours. Next time I will not be so cowardly.

Best wishes,

Marco polo 22:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC) (in real life Mark O'Malley)

[edit] Get Yourself a Backbone, Jack.

I notice that you disapprove of me sticking up for myself in your remark to me that I should "Grow up!".

Well, if by "Growing up!" you seem to be implying that I should let others insult me in whatever way they please, without any remark of objection, that I should just "take it", than I wholeheartedly reject that notion.

In such a case if someone should refer to you as some faggot, some limp-wristed "bone-smoker", I suppose you would just "Grow up and take it" as you suggest I should.

Sorry Jack.

Maybe you're ok with it, but you're not my only gay friend.

On behalf of all my other gay friends, I'll continue to stir up the shit whenever they make such ugly remarks against gays, just as I do whenever I see ugly remarks against Jews being made.

You tell me Jack, to grow up. I tell you Jack, get yourself a backbone.

Loomis 23:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Billings and the date of his death

Thanks for joining in at John Billings. I read about his death here, where it said 1 April. I then googled for information, and found this article, where it says he died late on Sunday night. I forgot what date it was, and calculated that Sunday was 2 April, so the second article seemed to confirm what the first one had said. It was only after I saw your edit summary that I began to have doubts and checked my computer clock. Obviously, it's time for bed, if I'm getting my dates muddled! If you have any information to add, please go right ahead. I feel a bit guilty about going to bed now with a newly-created article that has no sources except for a press release concerning the subject's death, but actually, everything that I put in would be easily found in the first few google hits for "John Billings" + died + April. I'll put in proper references soon. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coitus Interruptus

"Well, it's probable that someone has tried. But is it possible without coitus interruptus raising its ugly head?" - raising?, shouldn't that be lowering?  ;-) - X201 08:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B[y]elorussia vs. White Russia

Yes, Jack, I agree that this is indeed a question of history rather than language per se, though the choice of version seems to hinge on matters of Cyrillic-to-English transliteration. My choice of the Language RD rather than Humanities was based on a rather pragmatic decision of where I'd be likely to get the more reputable, hence useful, answer. I hope that this mild though not-wholly-innocent manipulation on my part will be viewed with indulgent tolerance (and perhaps even sympathetic comprehension) by my fellow RD contributors, certainly in view of my regular serious efforts there! -- Cheers, Deborahjay 09:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stuart Devlin

Article done! But I now see this is on your To Do list, so I hope you aren't miffed. Do please enhance as you see fit! Best wishes, Carbonix 15:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

Hi, JackofOz! We never continued that discussion on relationships. I've been really busy so I didn't have the time to come to your user page. I also didn't want to post something here and then make you wait for a week to get another post from me.

I was also afraid you somehow were "on the other side" of the debates that are going on about the Reference Desk and didn't want to talk to me anymore.

I was also afraid you might think I'm too young to be taken seriously.

Paranoid thoughts aside, I just read your post on the talk page of Marco Polo and then I felt like coming here and writing this post. I really liked reading the (few) things by you that I have come across on the Reference Desks and on its talk page and I hope we can be friends.

And I hope that if we do become friends that we do continue our discussion, since none of us would want our friends to live their lives doing it all wrong when it comes to relationships! Well, maybe none of our opinions are "wrong", but we've got nothing to lose and possibly much to gain by discussing them.

That's it for now. I hope you don't take too long to reply! A.Z. 19:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/c/User_talk%7EJackofOz_6b42.html"