User talk:JackofOz/Archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 16 Questions

It is funny how edit conflicts turn out. (I don't know how to link to the Ref Desk Humanities page where we both just dealt with the last questionner, and the Middle Ages that went on forever.) Anyone would have thought we had rehearsed a "good cop, bad cop" routine. Bielle 02:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the linking assist. I was hoping for a click-and-drag solution as I am the world's worst typist. I won't try it until tomorrow when I may be more awake. As for the student with the 16 questions, he/she is not studying and that is the problem. As I noted, I think the list is a year-end review, perhaps leading to final exams. (The time of year here in Canada and most of the northern US would be about right for that for public -i.e. "non-fee-paying"- high schools. Universities have been out since the beginning of April in Canada.) This is a student who has done nothing all year, perhaps a student who can do nothing, if the language level of the comments is any indicator, but who still wants to pass. (I taught a 3rd-year university course where 8 of the top ten spots in a class of 120 or so were held by students for whom English was not their cradle tongue; where I was consistently challenged -by students every semester, and, on one memorable occasion, by the Dean- for maintaining that "even in a business course" grammar, punctuation, spelling and internal logic all mattered; and, where plagiarism was so prevalent that I have had exactly the same poorly spelled, badly argued paper handed in by 3 students in the same class, though each one had a different title, to match one of the topics I had set. Insane! (When challenged on the papers, all three marched to the Dean's office the next day, with parents and lawyers, but without, oddly enough, copies of the papers.) I no longer teach. End of rant. Bielle 03:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

To "get across" a specific meaning, however, you need a specific set of tools. "Ya, um, like, ya know, it's, ah, well, like that, ya know" just doesn't cut it. Don't ever get onto mass transit with a bunch of teens. They all have an Ipod in one ear and a Bluetooth or a cell phone in the other; five minutes of listening to what passes for conversation will turn me from a fairly liberal believer in things like public transit, to a rabid protector of the sanctity of the private car. Thanks again! Bielle 03:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] spealing n gremmar

wotcha jackofox, i dinae meen tae intruude' bit ah caught thi egschange a'teewn ye and beille n ah hinck ye's r bith rite..., the spealing n gremmmer; no a daes is attrroius.

Sorry dear Jackofoz, just some small fun, it is simple what a small mind will find amusing, this was done with the upmost respect for you and beille love  ;) Perry-mankster 09:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] moszkowski polonaise

I wholeheartedly agree that more of Moszkowski's piano works need to be recorded. As you probably know, Seta Tanyel started to record his works on the Collins label but the company went bankrupt after she had only recorded 3 CDs. These have now been reissued on the Helios label (a branch of Hyperion) but there seems to be no effort to continue - a pity and a surprise, as Hyperion is quite enterprising when it comes to recordings "off the beaten track". If you're interested in unfamiliar polonaises, you should try the two polonaises from Opus 8 of Karol Mikuli. Mikuli was Chopin's most promising student and his polonaises do credit to his teacher. They have been recorded on the Polish label "Selene" - I ordered a copy from Warsaw via the internet but there may be other ways. Incidentally the complete piano works of Paderewski have also appeared on this label - all played by Radziwonowicz. Are you familar with the works of Henselt? He is another composer whose works need to be better known. Then there's Alkan - and if you can play his etudes, I take my hat off to you!! Regards Finchktj 06:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] guitar squeak

Quite right some noise is unavoidable, I should have said the way I make my guitar squeak is unprofessional :) iames 14:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] separated at birth?

might just be me Jack, but you and him look alike, love Perry-mankster 12:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Just noticed this guy's birthdate, and i'm not implying you are that old, oh no not me, no siree bob

[edit] Grammar

Hi there. I know that you often contribute to the Academy Awards articles. I have a question that I wanted to ask you, as opposed to just reverting your recent edit. You say that the proper verb is the past tense (was/were) in sentences like "The first X-rated Best Picture winner was Midnight Cowboy." I believe (but am not 100% sure) that the present tense (is/are) would be correct, as in: "The first X-rated Best Picture winner is Midnight Cowboy." In the present day (say, June 14, 2007), Midnight Cowboy still is the first and only X-rated winner ... no? It's like saying, "Meryl Streep is the most-nominated actress". Not, "Meryl Streep was the most-nominated actress". Meryl Streep presently holds that title today (i.e., she is). So, too, Midnight Cowboy presently holds its title today (i.e., it is). No? What do you think? Or, maybe a better / clearer example: Halle Berry IS the first Black woman to win Best Actress. Even though that happened in the past (in the year 2002), she STILL today holds that title and she still today is the first Black woman to win Best Actress. You would not say that she was the first Black Best Actress because, as of today, she still is. This is probably very nit-picky, but I am curious about which is correct, past or present tense. Perhaps both are correct? I am not sure -- your thoughts? Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 01:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC))

Hi, Joseph. Very interesting question, which doesn't seem to have a clear cut answer. When it comes to the first person to achieve any particular milestone, and others later did the same thing, we usually say "was". Eg. Neil Armstrong was the first human to step onto the Moon; Edmund Hillary was the first person to conquer Everest; George Washington was the first US President etc. However, it is not necessaarily incorrect to use "is", either; it all depends on the context, I believe. If you were at a formal dinner, and the after-dinner speaker was Neil Armstrong, he would probably be introduced as "Neil Armstrong is the first human to step onto the Moon". In an encyclopedic article, where we present facts about events that by definition happened in the past, we say "he was the first ...", the word "was" referring to the fact that the event took place in the past, but not acting as any kind of denial of the person's achievement. Where there's been, so far, only one person to achieve a particular milestone, eg. Halle Berry being the only black woman to win a Best Actress Oscar, there's nothing wrong with using "is". You could also use "only", or "first and only" (but that's a little tautologous). But what if the person is dead? Would we say "Washington is the first US President", or "Washington was the first US President"? If Halle Berry was dead, would it be "Halle Berry is the first ...", or "Halle Berry was the first ..."? I'd suggest we'd always say "was" in such cases; this suggests that whether the person concerned is dead or alive might also have a bearing on which word to use. It might also depend on the focus of the article - if the article were about Sidney Poitier, we could say "He is the first black man to win a Best Actor Oscar", but if the article were about the Academy Awards, not about Poitier in particular, it would probably be "was". What about things that only one person has ever achieved and it's now either extremely unlikely or impossible for anyone to ever repeat them? Frankin D Roosevelt is the only US President who was elected to 4 terms, and because the US Constitution now limits presidents to 2 terms, nobody else will ever equal his record, let alone better it, unless the US Constitution is again amended. I realise I just said "FDR is ...", even though he's been dead for over 60 years. That shows that even I break my own rules, and just how subjective this whole thing is. I hope this is of some help. Please come back and talk some more if you would like to. Cheers -- JackofOz 02:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your reply. This has become quite a complicated issue for me, and has puzzled me greatly. In any event, I posted this question at the Help Desk for Language: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. The question and ensuing discussion are under the June 17 date, entitled "Verb tense." I thought that you might be interested to take a look at that discussion. Or perhaps you already have. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 00:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC))
Hi, Joseph. I did see that thread but initially refrained from getting involved, as I wanted to see what others thought, without influence from me. I've since added some later thoughts. Have a read. Cheers -- JackofOz 01:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I did so. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro 18:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Margaret Barnard

Hi. I notice that you have done minor editing of the Barnard article I created. I thought I would explain my capitalisation practice - which is described in the Australian Style Manual as Minimal capitalisation. It is the style used pretty universally in library catalogues. If you look at the back of the title page of many books published today you will see CIP (cataloguing in publication) data. Here are a couple from books in the current pile at my feet: Mailman of the Birdsville track: the story of Tom Kruse, Snow falling on cedars and Yacker, Australian writers talk about their work. In other words this style capitalises the first letter of the first word, and the first letter of any proper nouns. I realise that while it is what you will find for most titles in the National Library's database and in public library catalgues, most people don't notice. We were taught at school to capitalise the first letter of all letters except conjunctions, articles, prepositions, weren't we? Anyhow, as you will have probably guessed I am (well, retired now) a librarian and this is the style I use. I understood that Wikipedia allows a variety of styles as long as it is consistent within the article. I have used this style in all the articles (only a few to date) that I have created, but have tried to follow existing style in articles I edit. Is this wrong? Regards Sterry2607 07:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops, and some people call it Sentence Case. Cheers, Sterry2607 10:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Role of Queen

But you're making it sound as if she just happens to live in the UK, which is a gross misrepresentation. She lives there because that is where her ancestors have been monarchs for 1500 years, it's her homeland, and she's British. TharkunColl 14:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

P... O... V.... --G2bambino 16:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A rose is a rose is a daisy . . .

If you think you have troubles with Jack and John, my youngest grandson's legal name is Charlie James. Almost no one will believe that the real name is not Charles. The more interesting part is that these are the exact same names that were going to be given even if the baby had been a girl. Bielle 02:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elgar's Enigma Variations

What do you think of the new theory regarding Elgar's Enigma Variations which was added to Wiki in June 2007? Do you think it could it be the correct solutionDnlsanta 15:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)?

[edit] Tchaikovsky

Looking forward to read what you add since you've finished Poznansky's Tchaikovsky: The Quest for the Inner Man. I've done all I can and this article really needs to be eyed from a fresh persoective—something for which you're extraordinarily good. Been concerned about length for some time but sounds like you realize this may be a long article no matter how much everyone attempts to keep things brief. Perhaps that's the only realistic way of looking at the situation, considering the subject matter. Jonyungk 18:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Bundle of Sticks

That "fascist commment" is the worst pun I have come across in days. I am still befuddled about the "bassoon" analogy from the one who does not want to be identified, though the mental picture is clear enough. Is it slang that you recognized? The whole set up feels like trolling to me. Bielle 02:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You are a sensible person . . .

and I would appreciate your view. I have become caught up in the question of Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#God, to which I believe you provided some comment. (I am no longer sure that you did; my brain is fried.) Would you, (and I ask from great humility and with a full understanding of the onerousness of the task) take a look at the thread, and let me know if I am out of line? I will take a simple "yes" or "no", and promise not to ask for more. I would appreciate more, of course, but I have asked enough already. (I realize I have asked two questions: 1) to read the thread and 2) to comment on my being in or out of line. You can answer them here and with only a "yes or a "no" to either or both.) Thank you. Bielle 23:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

1) Hi, Bielle. I read the thread, quickly. It wasn't onerous.

2) I wouldn't say that you were out of line. But the statement "As there is/are no God/god/gods, there can be no meaningful answer" was more-or-less inviting a reaction; regardless of whatever had gone before. It seemed like you were stating that the non-existence of God/gods is an established, proven, incontrovertible fact, which I'm sure you would agree is not the case. The question of whether there is or is not a God or gods is not one that science will ever be able to provide an answer to, so it will always be a matter of belief and faith. As I'm sure you know, billions of people have been and are as utterly convinced of the existence of God as you seem utterly convinced of the opposite proposition. If you had said "I believe that there is/are no God/god/gods, so I can give you no meaningful answer", that would probably have been accepted without further ado. On the issue of whether the question as posed, and subsequently revised, is a suitable one for the Humanities Ref Desk, I don't think it was inappropriate. But others are free to disagree. (Oh, and thanks for your post about my "fascist" comment; I'm glad others appreciate my weird sense of humour). -- Cheers JackofOz 03:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You are right about 2). Wikipedia is right, also, to disapprove of WP:POINT, because it so often fails to impress or even be noticed. To make up for my tetchiness, I am ignoring all but two of the OP's personal remarks, covering Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#God and another question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Semantics. One I joked about in respect of the answering of his prayers retroactively, and the other was a more general note on being "incivil" in his apparent assumptions. I am also leaving him the last word on both questions. The fact that he continues to miss the point is there, or not, for anyone to read, and more words from me won't help. Thank you. I shall be less pointed in future. Bielle 05:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elgar's Enigma

Thanks for your honest and thoughtful comments. I am new at this so I hope this is the best way to respond JackOfOz. If not, let me know.

Elgar did enjoy ciphers and he sent a very complex cipher to Dora a couple of years before he wrote the Enigma Variations. This Dorabella Cipher is well known among cipher "Enthusiasts" and none of them has been able to solve it for over 100 years. I personally feel that he thought, she could solve the simple four note cipher (3-1-4-2) he sent to her as his signature in two letters before telling her that she of all people should have guessed it. You must admit that the Britannia theory in no way addresses the "drop of the seventh in the 3rd and 4th bar should be observed." I think that was a big hint that the two sevenths were needed to get to 11 x 2/7 = 22/7. It is also important to realize that one did not need to guess the connection to all the clues to figure out that the enigma was Pi. All I did was think of his "circle" of friends, consider that Pi is a feature of all mathematical circles, play Pi (3-1-4-2) on a musical scale, and Voila!! Only later did I realize that Pi could fit all of the other clues that he gave.

A sincere thank you for your consideration. Dnlsanta 00:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to publish this Pi Theory of the Enigma in a peer review journal but I could use some suggestions for a Journal that has short turnaround time (from submission to publication). The Elgar Society Journal, edited by Julian Rushton, rejected it. (I suspect it may make his 1999 book about the enigma a little out of date.) In any event, I am looking for some other appropriate journals. Can you suggest any, or perhaps someone who could help me find the journal I am looking for? Dnlsanta 17:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In your comments to me on July 4 re Elgar, you mentioned that Dora Penny had some mathematical interest. I have been searching high and low for a reference to substantiate that in the paper I am writing but have had no luck. If you could direct me to a possible source of that information if would be most helpful. Thanks in advance. Dnlsanta 17:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Academy Awards

Hello. I believe that you are (more or less) actively involved (and interested) in Wikipedia's various Academy Award articles. Am I correct? You may or may not have noticed that there is one red link in the Academy Award article per se -- it appears twice -- for "Best Original Musical" Award category. Because it is a red link, most people think it is not a valid award -- and it gets deleted on a regular basis. My question is this. Are you yourself interested in -- or do you know of any one else who may be interested in -- creating an article for that Award? This would, of course, eliminate the red link and people's temptation to delete it. I would do so, but don't have the time at present. Please let me know your thoughts. Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 02:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

Hi, Joseph. Yes, I am very interested in the Oscars pages, but I don't know much (nothing, actually) about this particular award. I might be interested in doing some research to start the article, but not at the moment. I'm going overseas in a few days, and will be having a wiki-break for over 4 weeks. Cheers -- JackofOz 03:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
OK - thanks. Enjoy your break. Perhaps you can keep this in mind for after you return. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 03:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC))
A follow up ... FYI, very recently, someone actually decided to start up an article on this. See: Academy Award for Best Original Musical. Thanks. Just thought that you might want to know. (Joseph A. Spadaro 18:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Educational Postnominal letters

In regards to your edit on the removal of the educational postnominal letters on the J K Rowling article. I am going to revert your edit as just because it is not usual to see education postnominal letters it is not an excuse for removing them. I personally do not see anything wrong in seeing what educational qualifications someone has and where they have obtained them, in regards to their postnominal letters. The wikipedia manual of style does not state anything on the issue other then that the postnominal letter should be wiki linked ([1]). Which in this case they were. If a Professor has a string of educational and professional postnominal letters then due to the large number of letters, it would be sensible to just have the most prestigious. Let me know what you think --Benjaminevans82 14:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please, consider this request

I would like to ask something from you, Jack. You were the best person I could think of, because of your neutrality and impartiality. Please, see whether you think this discussion should be re-opened. Rockpocket said on my talk page that only administrators could re-open the discussion but I totally disagree with him about that. As every Wikipedian knows, and probably you know because you've been here for some time, administrators do not have any more authority than any other user about any subject whatsoever. A.Z. 02:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I would direct you to WP:DRV#Closing reviews (note who it says should close reviews) and Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion review, Specifically, "It is especially wasteful to go to deletion review over an unsourced stub when the alternative of creating a sourced article is available." There is nothing to be gained by this, A.Z. other than a (greater) reputation for trolling. Even if this article was, for some reason, to be undeleted on process, it would be AfD'd and deleted again immediately. If this article is to survive, it must be sourced and notability asserted (like every other article on WP). There is nothing stopping you creating that article. Either do so, or drop this WP:POINT, because at your rate you will find yourself censured for disruptive behaviour before too long. Rockpocket 03:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know about that. I changed the page about administrators accordingly. [2] A.Z. 03:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
(after edit conflict; I'm responding to A.Z.'s original request) Hi, A.Z. Thanks for the compliment. I can't see where Rockpocket has said that "only administrators could re-open the discussion". He has said "Generally only another admin should reverse a closure that, by its very nature, is controversial. If you have concerns, I would suggest requesting an outside opinion at WP:AN/I". So, he's offering you another approach to resolve the issue. In any case, I'm not keen to enter into this debate. Firstly, your original article, which I'd need to see in order to get a handle on just what it was that's been found inappropriate for Wikipedia, is now unaccessible. The evidence suggests that it did not contain suitable references, and did not demonstrate notability, so whatever implicit truth it contained, it seems to have failed our criteria for articles. But more importantly, I'm in the middle of final preparations for an overseas trip, I have a number of tasks on my mind, and my time is very limited. Sorry. -- JackofOz 03:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I thank Rockpocket for the offer, but I won't accept it precisely because I think administrators shouldn't have any more authority than any other user. If he had offered that I post something on the users' noticeboard, I would gladly accept the offer. You deserve the compliment, Jack. Thanks a lot for considering it. I would just like to add that the discussion wasn't about whether the article failed our criteria or not. It was just about whether a discussion about whether the article should be speedily deleted or not should be re-opened. Thanks again. Enjoy your trip! A.Z. 03:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greenway

Hi. I've been working on the Greenway article, but I find it frustrating that there seems to be no list anywhere of his buildings. Do you happen to know many of them? I'm trying to make up a list for the article.

Sardaka 09:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome Back, Jack!

The King & Carter Jazzing Orchestra delivers a storming rendition of "Back Home Again", welcoming our far-travelled friend of Oz.
The King & Carter Jazzing Orchestra delivers a storming rendition of "Back Home Again", welcoming our far-travelled friend of Oz.

I have missed your voice of sanity over the past month. I hope your trip went well. Bielle 04:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who inserted the "Back Home Again" image here, but the message seems fine. (Images are something I haven't yet tried.) As for wars on Wiki, the same ones go on and on and on. Briefly, there arose an Estophobia article, for example, but all the elements and attitudes were distilled from text on talk pages years old. Now that I have spent more time out and about reading articles and talk pages, it does seem more and more like the standard modes are argument, guerilla warfare and all out bombing; humanity seems a quarrelsome lot; some of us more than others, of course. The occasional editor/admin/bureaucrat -of which we have two new since you last were here- who works hard at civility and NPOV is often driven near to insanity by what reads to me like wilfull misunderstanding. I can take about half an hour of Wiki and then I go back to painting, or reading, or even housework, for a reality check. Plus ça changes . . . and all that. Bielle 17:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It was me. Forgot to sign in when I added it. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] jack is back!

hi jack, glad your back, the ref desk has been somewhat bereft of wit and has to put wp with my inane humour, hail the Ox has returned! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Perry-mankster (talk • contribs) 09:29, August 21, 2007 (UTC). oopsPerry-mankster 15:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seeking Advice and Assistance re: Deletion of 7 Academy Award Articles

To: User talk:JackofOz -- Hello. I am coming to your Talk Page for several reasons. (1) You seem to have an interest in -- and consistently contribute to -- the various Academy Awards articles. And (2) I am sure that you have been around Wikipedia much longer than I have and, thus, you have a better sense of how this all works and how to get things done. If those two assumptions are incorrect, please let me know. Assuming they are correct, I will proceed with my questions to you. Here on Wikipedia, I am most interested in, frequently contribute to, and tend to monitor and edit the various Academy Award articles -- of which there are many. That topic is essentially my primary interest here on Wikipedia. One day recently (about a week ago), I was reviewing / editing / proofreading the various Academy Award articles, as I do pretty regularly. Literally, as I was working on them, an administrator was deleting many, many of the articles -- I believe, seven Academy Award articles in total. I am sure that they went through the proper AfD process. However, I was unaware that they were even being considered for deletion (since they were not on my Watch List). As a result, I was not able to participate in any of the discussion or debate ... and all seven articles were ultimately deleted. The list of articles deleted is here (if you look under Item #3 on my "To Do List"): User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page09. Needless to say, I am very upset about this and I sincerely feel that these are worthwhile articles, into which a lot of work was placed (by me and by others). If I had my druthers, all seven articles would be un-deleted ... however, I am certain that Wikipedia hardly works that way (i.e., letting my druthers dictate the issue). So, basically, these are my questions to you. (1) Do you agree or disagree that these articles should have been deleted? (2) What, if anything, can I (or you or others) do about all of this? (3) Is there any way to fix this, or am I barking up a wrong tree, which will only result in banging my head against the proverbial brick wall? Will I be spinning my wheels, getting nowhere ... or can this situation change? By the way, the deletion debate is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of actors receiving six or more Academy Award nominations -- if you can call it a debate. I am really very upset about all of this. Please advise. PS: In a subsequent post, I can offer my specific reasons to un-delete these articles and to counter-argue the consensus reached at the debate. But, initially, I wanted to ask those (above) preliminary questions of you. Please reply at My Talk Page: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro. Another PS: I initiated a preliminary conversation with the administrator who deleted the articles. You can see that conversation on my Talk Page under the "Academy Awards" heading. Before my next move with that deleting administrator, I wanted to seek your advice on the best way to proceed. Thanks much. (Joseph A. Spadaro 18:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

Hello. I was seeking some advice and assistance from you, and I posted the above message on your Talk Page on August 21. However, I have not as of yet heard back from you. Please let me know whether you have had a chance to read my question, and whether you are willing to offer me some advice and assistance in this matter. Please let me know, either way -- so that I can pursue this issue with you or, if you are unwilling and/or unable to help, so that I can seek advice and assistance elsewhere. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 00:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC))
Hi Joseph. Apologies for the late response. I did read your question, but I thought the responses from others would probably have satisfied you, so I chose to let it lie. Fwiw, I would agree that having separate articles for the categories you created is not necessary - I see no reason why they couldn't all come under one article. As for dealings with admins, if it's important enough to you, all I can suggest is that if you can't make your voice heard by the ones you've already dealt with, enlist the services of an independent admin who's not been involved in the debate so far. At the end of the day, though, you may have to accept the consensus - that's how WP works. Best of luck. Cheers -- JackofOz 22:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. For clarification, I myself did not create these separate articles. I merely contributed to them over time. They had been created by others quite some time ago, and then they were suddenly deleted out of the blue. As far as putting them altogether under one article ... under which specific article do you think they would appropriately fall? If it is the generic "Academy Awards" article -- that specific article would then soon become quite lengthy and cumbersome, no? And then, it would be proposed to extract stuff into smaller, separate articles ... no? Let me know your idea. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 02:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC))
Knock, knock, Jack. Are you there? I need your help. (Joseph A. Spadaro 01:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC))
Hi. I contacted you on your User Talk Page on both Sept. 5 and Sept. 11, but I have not heard back from you as of yet. I just wanted to let you know that I am closing out / deleting this discussion thread. Thanks. I am sure I will be seeing you on the Academy Award pages and several of the Wikipedia Help / Reference Desks. Happy editing. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 02:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

[edit] John Ogdon's Rachmaninoff recordings.

Hi, JackofOz. I've just posted a comment on the John Ogdon page on his recordings of Rachmaninoff's works. Is there a way to confirm whether or not he recorded the Russian's complete piano output (and, as the case may be, make the relevant correction in the article ? )MUSIKVEREIN 17:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, Musikverein. This link that I found by googling suggests he recorded most of Rachmaninoff's piano works, but not all of them. The Moments Musicals, Op.16, for example, are not listed, and neither are the 3rd or 4th Concertos. I'll make a correction and you can have a look and edit it as appropriate. -- JackofOz 04:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response, Jack, and also for resolving the matter. Great job on the edit, too.MUSIKVEREIN 14:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Ogdon's compositions

Jack, I learnt a lot from your latest edit on the John Ogdon article. Amongst other revelations, I had no idea his compositional output includes even cantatas. Great contribution, congrats ! MUSIKVEREIN 21:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Dawson

Hello, J of O! ref to 'toffee-nosed list of Brit PMs' who owned P Dawson's records: the only reason to know or mention this was because Dawson himself, in his own book, made a point about it (Fifty years of Song, 1951, pp 189-190). He obviously thought it was a good thing. I included it because it seemed interesting that all those leaders of British government through the inter-war years thought that he was such a good thing. But then his parents were Scottish, after all, and so were most of the PMs. Dr Steven Plunkett 22:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steven (or Dr Plunkett). Thanks for that info. However I still don't think it's an important fact, encyclopedically speaking. That Dawson mentions this in his autobiography would reflect, I think, the more fawning and subservient attitude that some Australians of earlier days had towards British Governments. The Union Jack was almost as often flown here as the Australian Flag was. Even Robert Menzies, who retired as Prime Minister as late as 1966, famously (and offensively to all the millions of post-war non-British migrants) said "We Australians are British to the bootstraps". So I see Dawson's mentioning the British PMs who owned his records as a reflection of the post-colonial times, no more. For the purposes of a 21st century encyclopedia, however, to single out these prime ministerial purchases as somehow conferring greater importance to his recordings than might otherwise have been the case, would be jingoistic and reactionary in the extreme. Their merit is musical, not political. (By the way, I absolutely love Dawson's singing and I have many of his records. In fact, I think I'll go off now and play some his LPs - yes, I still have LPs). All the best. -- JackofOz 04:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] greenway

So far I've had little luck, but you never know. thanks for the interest.

Sardaka 08:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bernstein's comments about Gould

The only change that I made was to change the words "Why I do I not" to "Why do I not." You must be mistaking me for someone else.Lestrade 16:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Hector Berlioz

Thank you very much for catching that year typo - I kept typing 19 instead of 18 and having to correct them as I went along, but forgot to proof them all once I finished Lethe 15:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Hardy

Hello JackofOz. I saw your question on the Robert Hardy talk page and I wanted to pass along someone who might help. Recently User:Dcrossle went through several of the British actors that I have on my watchlist and cleared up the confusion over their honours situations. As a Yank I appreciated his acumen in this area so you might ask him about Mr Hardy's specifics. I hope that this helps and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 00:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tchaikovsky

Glad you're back, Jack! Hope you had a good Wiki-break.

The next time you look at Tchaikovsky, you'll notice a lot has changed. Basically, I replaced an "essay" with a "Wikipedia article" from last January, then updated it with "info" which will hopefully be considered "facts." Some have wanted to see a Tchaikovsky article go to FAC; maybe, with some extra work from others, it may eventually be this one. I give up. As you can probably tell, I'm not happy about what's happened but am resigned to it and am not planning to write or add to any WIki articles soon, or perhaps at all. Jonyungk 21:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit

Hi, can you tell me where you got the source that this lady is of Maori descent? As far as I know she is of Polynesian and Chinese descent. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I got it from IMDB [3]. I know IMDB isn't always accurate, but then neither is WIkipedia. If you have better info, please feel free to change it. Cheers. -- JackofOz 21:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I am pretty sure she says her father was a native of tahiti and her mother was chinese in her autobiography. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, dig it out and if that's what she herself actually says, go for it. -- JackofOz 00:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] heptagon

See Talk:heptagon. Andrew Kepert 10:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Kingsley

Hi again JackofOz. I was just wondering if you could tell me why you added 'n' next to the film Turtle Diary in Ben Kingsley's filmography. You put it just outside of the link for the film. I have seen the film and this isn't part of the title. Does it mean something specific that I am unaware of or did you mean to put it somewhere else on the page? I wanted to check before making any changes because I know that you are one of wikiP's concientious editors. Thanks ahead of time for any help that you can give. MarnetteD | Talk 13:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

How extrordinarily odd! That wasn't one of the edits I intended to make. I can only assume (a) my finger went somewhere strange while I wasn't watching - but if so, it made 3 separate keystrokes on its little journey off with the fairies - or (b) the software had a brain spasm. I'm going with (b). I've removed it now. Thanks for the alert, MarnetteDm, and for the compliment.  :) JackofOz 00:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oz flag

Hi Jack. You're pretty quick off the mark. I just put it there about one minute before you sent your message. Actually, I didn't notice the glitch until you pointed it out. Doesn't bother me. I don't know where you'll find a glitch-free version. I took this one off Daniel's page.

I see you're Scottish as well. We sure get around, don't we.

Sardaka 12:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chopin

Hi JackofOz! I'm glad to find a splendid wikipedian-pianist.In Japanese wikipedia,The perfect articles of Chopin's piano works has been fulfilled.

I'm wondering the fewer articles of Chopin works in wikipedia.The English speaking people don't prefer the articles or explanations of each piano works,do they?

I find the differences of our culture,including a lot of academic affairs.----The DQN,macbeth 01:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks very much for the wise words

as well as for the compliment on Tchaikovsky. It wasn't so much a question of length that made me scrap the 90,000+ version as it was one of style. After reading feline1's comments of the article being "flowery" and "unencyclopedic," I asked Andy Wang to read the article. He confirmed that, while I had written an excellent essay, it was not up to Wikipedia standards in style and tone as well as length. Rather than keep working with a structure that obviously did not fit, I substituted the diff from January toward which Andy had pointed me to merely review, then started updating the info with copy from my article while attempting to keep things as purely factual and NPOV as possible. Yes, I was extremely frustrated—I allowed both the peer review and the fact I could get noone to simply read the article and let me know how things were flowing (including the editor who had submitted the piece for peer review in the first place as a prep for a go with the FAC). But my revamping the article was not an act of frustration. It was simply an adjustment that had to be done. I truly wonder whether I can continue as a Wiki editor, not becuse of what has happened but because I'm more aware of how much different my writing style and viewpoint is from WP standards. Maybe you went through something like this also—that's just a guess, with my thinking maybe this is more of a general feeling everyone goes through. At the same time, Andy has asked me to stay and I'd hate to let him down. Maybe you can share something that would help with my dilemma. Jonyungk 20:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vladimir Horowitz master interview

ya know....i saw that master interview while i was editing, but rather than challenge it, i figured someone had to know what they were talking about. now just imagine the horror when i discovered it was apparently 'i' who put it there! i still have no idea where it came from. cut-copy-paste is indeed a very dangerous tool in the hands of the careless..... cheers! --emerson7 | Talk 01:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007

You know, it's good policy to provide an ACTUAL edit summary instead of the meaningless "removed vandalism" when making non-obvious edits. Try to remember that in the future. --Calton | Talk 13:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Calton, in response to this, I have absolutely no intention of ever defending any of my edits to you. But I'd like to give you some feedback. Your post breaks your own "Rule 9" - you know, the one about hostility being unwelcome. (Unless the rule applies only to others, and not to you. Hmmm. ...) My earlier experience of you was one of hostility writ large; and apparently nothing's changed in the past 18 months or so. When hostility emanates out of a person's every pore, it's a bit rich when they demand that others not act likewise. But then, defensiveness is your thing, apparently - so much so that it's your Wikipedia motto ("It's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that"). Negativity begets negativity. Think about it. And maybe have a think about why you're so angry. Have a nice day. Oh, and further communication with me, on any topic whatsoever, will be unwelcome unless it's done in a reasonably courteous manner. Otherwise it will receive short shrift. Bye now. -- JackofOz 22:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep up the good work, Jack. 'Removed vandalism' is a reasonable edit summary when you're removing vandalism, and it's unfortunate that some editors will immediately assume bad faith rather than asking you about your edits first. For absolute clarity in cases like this, it may be a good idea to use a summary along the lines of 'remove subtle vandalism' or 'remove sneaky vandalism', just to emphasize that you're deliberately removing something that might be mistaken for worthwhile content. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ten. A simple click on Mary Hopkin's edit history would have told Calton whatever he wanted to know. He's a big boy now. -- JackofOz 22:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
And other editors are supposed to waste time because you're too lazy to write a proper edit summary for what looks like obvious vandalism? You're a big boy, I assume, and should know better.
I have absolutely no intention of ever defending any of my edits to you - It's easy to understand why.
Yes, it is easy to understand why. -- JackofOz 14:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
But I'd like to give you some feedback - Your feedback, as usual, was as worthless, dishonest, and insincere as it's always been. I'll give you that, you're at least consistent.
And you think cleaning up the messes left by the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical is a problem? I wonder why you'd have a problem with that?
No, I don't think that cleaning up messes is a problem. I do it myself all the time. What I do think are problems are:
  • (a) your hostile attitude to bad posts. Yes, it is true that some bad posts are made by dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical users. And malicious users. But the majority are made in good faith by users who happen to have their facts wrong, or who express themselves poorly or ambiguously (after all, the English Wikipedia is not restricted to those who can demonstrate a certain command of English). One of the rules we all live by here is "assume good faith". You seem to have abandoned that philosophy (if you ever adhered to it at all) and to have taken it as a given that all bad edits are attributable to dishonesty, incompetence or fanaticism. How is incompetence measured? Surely it must have some relationship with one's capacity to abide by the rules. Well, what about the "assume good faith" rule? If you don't edit with that in mind, that makes you either incompetent or wilfully disruptive. You tell me which one. Do you have the same unforgiving and judgemental attitude to mistakes that happen to you in your daily life in the outside world? What about mistakes that you yourself make? You must make them, as I assume you're a human being. Do you treat yourself as harshly for your mistakes as you treat others for theirs? Maybe a little bit of self-forgiveness might be the way to go for starters; and then the ripples will flow out to others.
  • (b) your defensive attitude to the potential attitude of others, as exemplified in "Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that". Why suggest problems where they don't exist? This just creates problems that would not otherwise exist. You invite reaction. You demand attention. Wikipedia is not about you, Calton. -- JackofOz 14:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and further communication with me, on any topic whatsoever, will be unwelcome unless it's done in a reasonably courteous manner - Yes sir. Am I supposed to salute now, sir?
No, that will not be necessary. But please at least address people by their user name. And don't just demand that they obey your pontifical instructions (e.g. "Try to remember that in the future"). This is not an army boot camp, or a gulag. It's a community of people who have the same common goal. A tiny bit of courtesy goes a long way to making communication with each other easier, so that we can get on with the business we're here for, to write the encyclopedia. You can be as critical as you like of a user's posts, without treating the user personally with contempt and disdain. There is a difference between who people are and what they do. I welcome all kinds of constructive feedback on my contributions, from all quarters, but the approach that you've used with me up till now cuts no ice at all. -- JackofOz 14:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
In any case, perhaps you can start doing so yourself, someday. Nonetheless, if I see you screwing up again, I will not hesitate to inform you, no matter what "rules" you lay down to avoid responsibility for your actions. Don't like it? Don't screw up. --Calton | Talk 10:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Screwing up, eh? It strikes me as extraordinarily odd that you've reserved your invective for the user who actually fixed a problem, rather than for the malicious user who created it in the first place. As others have noted, my edit summary, while not fulsome, was certainly adequate. There was no screw up, up to that point. The screw up happened later, by someone who shall remain nameless - but I bet you can guess his name. Whoever he was, I forgive him. -- JackofOz 14:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Give yourself a break, Calton. When you failed to do your research and miscorrected JackofOz's correct and researched removal of false information, your own edit summary here said "Undid actual vandalism by JackofOz (talk)". This was no more informative (by your own standards), in addition to being incorrect and unnecessarily accusatory. Please be consistent, and please stop bothering a good faith editor over nothing. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of that. Thanks, Sluzzelin. Not that I keep tabs on these things, but I don't think I've ever been accused of vandalism before. I guess there has to be a first time for everything. Still, I've had a good run (4-odd years). What delicious fun. -- JackofOz 14:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Jack, this is a formally lopsided discussion. While you always make all your remarks in strict adherence to Wikipedia's no personal attacks and civility policies, this Calton character descends on everybody with all guns firing, in a no-holds-barred manner. It's rather like a gunless constable facing a well-armed criminal... Since he is a persistent troublemaker - so far his uncouth behaviour has aggravated, amongst others, Ignatzmice, CBDunkerson (both of whom have left warning messages on his talk page), TenOfAllTrades, Sluzzelin and myself - and considering we won't retort using the same language he does, maybe we should simply ignore his invectives. MUSIKVEREIN 18:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Musikverein. After our first run-in about 18 months ago, Calton and I have had nothing to do with each other, and if this latest atrocity is anything to go by, I hope it stays that way. He contacted me (not the other way around). In my ever-hopeful (and probably naive) way, I thought that some feedback might have some impact on him. So far, there's no evidence of that happening, but miracles do happen sometimes. I have said to him (above) that constructive and courteous comment is always welcome, and if he were to approach me on that basis I would be happy to enter into a dialogue with him, as I would with anyone. Otherwise, your advice is excellent and I accept it. Cheers. -- JackofOz 23:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, Jack. I admire your optimism and hope it proves fruitful. Be well. MUSIKVEREIN 02:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rachmaninoff biopic

Jack, I left a note about this on the Weissenberg talk page. It's really a tantalizing idea. Regards, MUSIKVEREIN 16:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buttocks

OK, I've read it three times and I still don't understand what you meant. Must have me stupid 'ead on. For a change(!) What did you mean? --Dweller 15:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Was it a ref to my hyperbolic use of "geological" time? --Dweller 15:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to give an indication of the vast quantity of time that men have been selfish for. Lol. --Dweller 15:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
After a contentious day of editing, the Ref Desks and those that inhabit them can be depended on for a few smiles. Thanks for being dependable. --Dweller 15:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barstar

The Barnstar of Good Humor
For making critical comments about my buttocks, I award you this Barnstar. Bottoms-up! --Dweller 15:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Jack's Pictures 023.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Jack's Pictures 023.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Shell babelfish 04:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. -- JackofOz 04:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conservatorium

Hi, I wonder whether there's a reference for that bit you just added. The whole article is sorely in need of references. Perhaps you have a copy of the history of the institution that was published about ... three years ago? Tony (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Tenuous indeed. Are you a musician? Tony (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Menzies Lecture

I got the list of lecturers from the pamphlets handed out at the lectures themselves - the 2006 one specifically. Also, there is a book which contains transcripts up to 1998, but I think that can only be purchased through the Trust. I suppose that doesn't really count as a reliable third-party source, but they are correct. Aspirex 10:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hahaha

LOL[4] — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 04:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the Heckelphone an instrument played from the peanut gallery? ;) (oh, and you might do well to read my signature! :) ) — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 04:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saturdays

FYI - "The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 provides the following timetabling provisions for elections...the election must be held on a Saturday (s. 158)"[5]. Cheers, Timeshift 09:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Engineered

Google "fisher cook engineered"... "Minister but, without control of the Senate, was continually out-generalled by Fisher. Exasperated, Cook engineered a double dissolution the next year, ..." from www.ce.canberra.edu.au/amt/PDFs/AMT2005Sykes.pdf. Look - you can make a fuss over the wording, but that's your choice. We just make quality articles, if you want to go around trying to find holes that arent there for whatever reason, then that is your perogative. Timeshift 14:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You make it sound as if "we" somehow doesn't include myself, Timsehift. I am also solely interested in making quality articles, which is why I've created 78 of them from scratch and made over 17,000 edits over the past 4 years, only a tiny fraction of which have ever been reverted. I'm not saying that whatever I write is sacrosanct, but my record of quality edits stands for itself. Just because a particular form of words is found in a source does not necessarily mean it is the best, or the only appropriate, form of words. The basic facts may be right, but the way of expressing those facts can often do with some improvement. If Wikipedia isn't about continuous improvement, what is it about? This was the sole rationale for my edits to Andrew Fisher. I took the trouble to explain to you what my edits were about, yet you respond merely with the charge that I'm "trying to find holes that arent [sic] there", with zero discussion of the substance of my argument. My impression remains that you are objecting on principle to the article being changed. I will therefore be discussing my edits on the talk page for all comers to have a say. -- JackofOz 00:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] edit to Australian House of Representatives

Just a query about your edit, would you consider a Minister to be an administrator? I would have considered that the Director-General administers a department and the Minister is more the representative, both externally and within Cabinet and is responsible for policy development, however it is the Director-General who administrates or implements the policy which is given to the Department by the Minister and/or Cabinet. Your thoughts? WikiTownsvillian 11:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, WikiTownsvillian. Good question. In a practical sense it could be said that the Secretary (I don't think federal departments have Directors-General any more) "administers" their department or agency on a day to day basis, meaning that they are responsible for the department running efficiently and coming up with the results expected by the Minister. But technically, the Minister administers their department, and administers the legislation they are assigned under their portfolio. This assignment is made by the Governor-General under the "Administrative Arrangements Order", as amended from time to time. Here’s the current AAO. See para 2, "The legislation administered by a Minister of State administering a Department ...".
There is a difference between a portfolio and a department, btw (which is what prompted my edit). A portfolio is a ministerial office, and includes responsibility for all the legislation specified for that portfolio by the AAO. Some acts are split between more than one portfolio and are hence dealt with by more than one department. For example, the Corporations Act is split between the Treasurer and the Attorney-General. The A-G administers paragraph 1315(1)(c) and section 1316 of the Act, and the Treasurer administers the remainder of the Act. The A-G's Department and the Dept of the Treasury deal only with their respective parts of the Act. Also, a Minister may administer more than one department, and a department may be administered by more than one Minister, eg. DFAT is administered by both the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Downer) and the Minister for Trade (Vaile). Cheers. -- JackofOz 12:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Order of the British Empire

Hi, I left a reply on [6] about appointments. Essentially the basis for the comment was that I understood that appointments are made under the Order's seal, rather than the seal of any particular realm, thus making the issue moot. 202.89.152.154 06:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ricci

Hi there, Jack, you know me of old (Peter Dawson prime minister collections) but here I am in new clothes and you are still crossing out my edits!!! Fair dos, I have never yet reverted anyone else's edit of anything I have written, being heartily convinced that I am at least as fallible as most, and probably more so, and yet somehow I am always shocked when people cross things out... Just to keep me happy, (and to stop me doing other things that may irritate you) what's wrong with saying that Ricci studied with Kulenkampff? Surely it is of interest whom he (K) influenced?
Cheers, I like the photo on your page. I am not so photographable. Kretzsch 09:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kretzsch. If you look a little closer, you’ll see the reason I removed that particular sentence (“Ruggiero Ricci was a student of Kulenkampff's.”) was because Ricci’s having studied with Kulenkampff was mentioned in another sentence lower down the page – “Among his students was Ruggiero Ricci.” Since we didn’t need 2 sentences saying the same thing; and since the latter one was more concise, and in what I thought was a more appropriate place, I removed the former. Don’t worry, appearances can be deceptive at first. Cheers. -- JackofOz 11:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
You are too kind. I have just stopped banging my head against the wall. I am now officially a numbskull. Bless you and happy editing! Kretzsch 19:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

Hi. I just read your thoughts on trivia and I was wondering if you would be interested in this.

Here is a wikiproject proposal for trivia and a fresh look at trivia policy by the admins. Support the wikiproject proposal. Add your name to the list here: [wiki project proposal for wikitrivia]

Please send this link to other users that you feel would be interested. Thanks Ozmaweezer 14:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Al Gore's Nobel Prize and Oscar Award

To: User talk:Chrishomingtang and User talk:JackofOz

From: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro

Re: Academy Award#Miscellaneous records

Hi. I noticed your edits to the Miscellaneous Records section of the Academy Awards article, in which you indicate that "Al Gore really did not win an Oscar" in your edit summary box. Nonetheless, the substantive edit in the article states: "George Bernard Shaw is the only person to have been awarded both an Oscar and a Nobel Prize. Al Gore is arguably the second person to have been awarded both a Nobel Prize (the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 shared with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and an Oscar (presented by Davis Guggenheim, director of the Academy Award winning An Inconvenient Truth, in 2007)." I am pretty confused about this situation ... and this wording in the article is even more confusing. Did Gore win an Oscar or not? If he did ... or even if he did not ... why is his status "arguable"? Please reply at my Talk Page and clear this up for me. Please reply -----> User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 04:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

May I comment here? I was also under the impression that Gore won an Oscar, and that last week he joined the exclusive GBS club of Oscar/Nobel winners. I even made edits to both Gore's and GBS's articles saying this. But I was reverted and informed that Gore did not win an Oscar. The Oscar was awarded to the director of An Inconvenient Truth (whatever his name is), not to Gore. Gore got all the attention and the limelight, and he joined the production team on the stage at the Oscars ceremony, and it was widely reported that "Al Gore's film AIT has won the Oscar for Best Documentary" - so it's perhaps understandable why he was often referred to as an "Oscar-winner", but that is simply not the case. Either he was awarded an Oscar, or he wasn't - there's no middle ground with "arguably" etc. He wasn't awarded an Oscar. The Oscar-winning director (whatever his name is) must be fuming - could 1 person out of 1000 name him?
This reminds me of another case where misinformation was perpetuated for years. When I was at school, I was told, many times, that Australia's first Oscar winner was the photographer Damien Parer, who supposedly won the 1942 Best Documentary Oscar for Kokoda Front Line. This was something that every Aussie kid knew, because Parer was an icon in 1950s Australia, having been killed on duty in the Pacific while filming our boys in action against the enemy (he's a lot less remembered these days). But it was never true. The film that won that Oscar was produced by Ken G. Hall, and Hall was the one who was awarded the Oscar. When I first heard this, I said "Ken G who?". But it's true. -- JackofOz 05:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Jack of Oz. Sorry that it has taken so long for me to reply back to you -- but lately I have been pretty busy with "real life" (i.e., non-Wiki life). Yes, you may comment here ... your comments are appreciated ... and, in fact, I was glad to get some input on this very issue. I had suspected all along exactly the scenario that you described. That is, Gore never really won that Oscar -- it was just sort of hyped up that way in the media. And, I agree -- no middle ground -- no "arguably" -- Gore either did or did not ... and, in this case, he did not. But, I wanted to give the original poster the benefit of the doubt, and -- as such -- I asked them to clarify this point for me ... just in case there was something that I was missing / unaware of. At this point, I am going to revert and/or edit the Academy Award article to reflect the actual scenario ... that is, George Bernard Shaw is the only winner of both an Oscar and a Pulitzer ... and Gore is not. Thanks for your input -- it is appreciated. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro 19:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Thanks!

Continuing with the thankyou argument. I don't own an Australian dictionary at home here. I went on to Google and only found one dictionary, but you had to pay to use it...I don't think so.

But as I said in my question, if you go onto Microsoft Word, if you type in thankyou straight away, it will try to correct you. That is because it's default dictionary is US. But if you go to languages, go and get the Australian dictionary up, you may have to download it if you don't live here. Once you have the Australian one up, it should say down the bottom of the screen, delete the first thankyou you put in and type it in again. If the Australian dictionary is on, the red line will not appear.

Sorry, but that is the only defense I have! And yes, Australians are getting worse at spelling every day! Aflumpire 23:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"Australians are getting worse at spelling every day!" - oh, tell me about it, mate. There are various major factors at work. Firstly, the lack of quality teaching these days. I don't mean that teachers don't do their job well, but what they teach leaves a lot to be desired. It's not the teachers' fault, but the fault of governments who allow basic concepts such as nouns, verbs and apostrophes to be glossed over, if mentioned at all. Ever since kids started coming out of high school functionally illiterate - and this was first commented on at least 30 years ago - alarm bells should have been going off and changes should have been made in primary and secondary schools. This was one of the few things I agreed with John Howard about in the leaders debate last night. What a disgrace that English ever became an optional subject in schools. What a disgrace that a person can do 12 years of school, and still have to do a remedial English class before being accepted into university. Then there's the internet, which, for all its great benefits, has dumbed down language. People used to know the difference between "affect" and "effect", and "its" and "it's", and "your" and "you're", and "to", "too" and "two", etc ad nauseam - but the numbers are rapidly diminishing. Websites, TV ads, newspapers, you name it, now get these things wrong all the time. People are writing "a lot" as one word "alot". The tragedy is that they're unaware they're making a mistake in the first place, and if the error is pointed out, they don't seem to care. It's become uncool to ever correct anyone's spelling or grammar - as long as the intended meaning can somehow be deciphered, that seems to be sufficient. I do some professional editing, and I've often been told "Why change it - it gets the message across". I live near the Princes Highway, which is so often misspelled - and mispronounced - "Princess" Highway - by the locals, and in websites and ads. If they paid me for the amount of time I spend cringing and weeping, I'd be a millionaire. And American spelling is starting to dominate. We've always used "practice" as a noun and "practise" as a verb, but the Americans for some strange reason have reversed this. I see you wrote "defense", whereas the Aussie way is still "defence" (I'm not having a go at you, just noticing what's happening). Then there's SMS, which has resulted in many people now writing abbreviated SMS-code in contexts where it's completely inappropriate. Anyway, enough of my ranting, because if left unchecked I could go on literally forever. -- JackofOz 00:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

G'day. I notice that you changed the spelling of "Labor Party" to "Labour Party" in the King O'Malley article. Regretfully the ALP has chosen to use the US spelling and has done so O'Malley himself stuck his oar in. I've changed it back. Gillyweed 20:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Gillyweed. There was a good reason for my edits. It was "Labour" up until 1912, when King O'Malley had it changed to "Labor" (he was from North America and thought the American spelling was more modern and fresh). So, any references to the party prior to then should be spelled "Labour", otherwise the point of referring to the change of spelling at that particular time is lost. This is seen elsewhere - see Andrew Fisher, for example. -- JackofOz 00:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I replied on my page. And indeed I retract the weary sigh. Actually I mostly spend my time defending Aus/UK spelling against the North American hordes, so this was a different exercise altogether. I won't further revert any of your changes on this one. Cheers! Gillyweed 01:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)