User talk:JackofOz/Archive 38

Why so 'serious'?
Ah, please explain? She's not the Premier right now, so we ought to indicate that she's the Premier (designate) or Premier (presumptive). —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 06:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * She is neither, User talk:MelbourneStar. A week is a long time in politics, and so is a weekend.  It's one thing to regard her as the very likely new premier.  It's quite another to give her the title "premier-designate" or "premier-presumptive".  We have zero authority to dream up such quasi-official-sounding terminology.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  07:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, one can claim that the sources we use, do have such authority. In fact, they go a step further, claiming that she certainly will be Premier – and in all likelihood considering she has struck a deal with the factions and her two rivals have withdrawn and supported her, she will take that top job. Us adding "Presumptive", "designate" -- that's all just semantics. In three days time, the Liberal party will elect a new leader and she happens to be the only one going for it. Hence, I reject the silly and unconstructive characterisation that applying "designate" after "Premier" is a "serious misuse of the term".
 * I'm more than happy to wait it out, but us being a few steps behind common sense isn't exactly helpful either. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 07:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * When I said that this is a serious misuse of the term 'designate', this is what I meant: When a new governor-general is appointed, his/her name is announced some months prior to their swearing-in. The queen has approved the appointment, but they are not yet in office.  Until that date, they're known as the governor-general-designate.  Well, nobody has yet chosen Gladys Berejiklian or anybody else to be the next premier.  The party election to choose a successor to Mike Baird is happening on Monday, still over 2 days away.  All we know at this stage is that she is planning to be a candidate; and that she will probably be unopposed.  But somebody could come forward over the weekend.  She herself could change her mind.  She could fall under a bus.  Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.  She is not anything-designate or anything-presumptive.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  12:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years!
... special thanks for "Still so many articles to write - don't let anyone ever tell you Wikipedia is almost done. Hah! We haven't even scratched the surface.", back then, and still true. - Heard a great singer yesterday, Lance Ryan, will become blue soon. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your passion, Gerda. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  11:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * When you move a page, you don't have to fix Wikidata, - a bot will do it. But please fix a related navbox, because no bot does it, and the article shows bold only when the real link, not a redirect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Good point. Thanks for the reminder, Gerda.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  09:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Ask copyedit
Could you check String Quartet No. 4 (Glass)? I followed No. 2 structure but I'm not English native. Maybe it need some tweaks. Thanks! Triplecaña (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks.  --  12:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank YOU Triplecaña (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Heartfelt pleasantry
I appreciate your contributions to the ref desks. My heart gladdens when I scan your signature. --Stanstaple (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Why, thank you, User:Stanstaple. That's the nicest thing anyone's said about me in a good long while.  Unless my 2nd grandchild is born today (he or she is already 12 days "overdue"), that will be the highlight of my day.  Many good wishes.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Update: We are still waiting for the happy news and it's now the 28th here. So, it was the highlight of my day.  Thanks again, User:Stanstaple.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Update: It's a boy. One of each now.  Happy day.  I must have a pancake to celebrate. :)
 * I'm only sorry my mother (the baby's great-grandmother) is no longer with us, having passed away on 4th January. But she did get to meet her great-granddaughter in 2015. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  11:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Belated congratulations! Stanstaple (talk) 07:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair Use in Australia discussion
As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

Questionable comment on RD/T
Your go at BB on the ref desk talk page is unhelpful - I cannot see what good will become of this. If anything, I suspect there's a boomerang coming you way so my advice would be to duck. My helpful advice to you is to accept that there's a lot of people on here with a lot of experience, and there's never a good time to cause a disturbance. If you want to beat the war drums, I suggest you do it with at least some sort of consensus. Remember this is a project, and there will always be people with differing views to your own so please broaden your mindset to differing POV's.

74.215.182.131 (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughts. So far from "causing a disturbance", my intention is to reduce the amount of disruption that infects the ref desks. As for consensus, it will either emerge or it will not.  Let us wait and see.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, 131, being disruptive -- as Bugs too often is -- is not a "differing view" or a POV; it is... being disruptive. Most of us have given up any hope that Bugs will ever change or be meaningfully disciplined, but that doesn't mean Jack should be counseled by you not to make one more attempt.  You're basically saying that Bugs should just be allowed to get away with his disruption, and that's wrong. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Full agreement with Jack and Steve. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Still not a consensus. You seem to neglect that if BB's contributions were anything less than sound he would have been reprimanded by now. Sure, he has bad days and good days but ultimately it's been decided that the bigger picture in terms of his contributions is beneficial to this project. I'm not asking any of you to agree with that. But what I am asking you to do is respect BB, the administrators and other editors that have given him their full confidence. To do otherwise, would be to undermine them as well and that's completely unfair. I don't think I could make it any clearer than that. If there is still misunderstanding on your part, I suggest you think deeply about your whether this is the right side of the project for you. 74.215.182.131 (talk) 11:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The "right side of the project"? Please list the "sides" of the project so that I can begin to understand you.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  12:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It's all or mostly good-faith debate about how the ref desks should operate. No problem. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow that's really deep Bugs. You've been taking phiwosofy lessons haven't you. Slight  Smile  17:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's "wessons", Elmer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Attack on Pearl Harbor
Hi. The U.S. Constitution gives the power to declare war exclusively to the U.S. Congress, which is why Roosevelt's speech -- which is oten characterized as declaring war -- was in actuality a request to Congress to declare war. For that reason, it was the United States which declared war on the Empire of Japan, not Roosevelt.

In Nazi Germany, on the other hand, every history I've read makes it quite clear that Hitler himself made the decision to declare war, with minimal input from anybody else. (In fact, many characterize it as being done in an almost offhand manner.) The speech he made wasn't requesting the Reichstag to declare war, it was an announcement that he has decided that Germany would declare war on the U.S.  Thus, it's quite reasonable to say that Hitler declared war on the U.S.

So, parallel construction doesn't really apply, since the situations were far from parallel in actuality. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining that. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, but even if it was on Hitler's personal authority, it was still a declaration of war on behalf of the German state. I don't see anything wrong with using "Germany" in that sentence.  If it is desired that the article explain the fact that Hitler had (or took) the authority to do that, whereas Roosevelt could not, I would prefer to do it explicitly. --Trovatore (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think I agree. To the WP reader, and to the people of the time, the point is/was that Germany and the USA issued mutual declarations of war.  The details of the constitutional or administrative protocols behind these respective announcements are of secondary importance.  --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought of a solution that seems to cover everything in this discussion and is reasonably natural -- Hitler declared war; Congress (rather than the US) declared war in response. I made the edit to the article.  See what you think. --Trovatore (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm happy. Thanks. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lola Albright, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joy House. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Newman family (show business) has been nominated for discussion
Category:Newman family (show business), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Travis Banton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Gilded Lily. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

But
Do you know The Likely Lads and Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads?? Both Bob and Terry, but more so Terry, are prone to ending sentences with "but". DuncanHill (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * That's what I meant by "low-grade", but. :)  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
Your clever wording in this post made me laugh today. Although I have no wisdom to add in response to your question, I thank you for brightening my morning reading. --Thomprod (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  09:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Schubert piano compositions
I'm baffled by your 3 recent edits at Template:Schubert piano compositions. I think your was correct (moving   after the categories. But I don't understand the . Why remove those categories? I noticed there were 10 minutes between each edit, so I suspect you may have checked the effect of your changes on some related articles that use this template, but changes in templates, especially the categories they transclude (which the template incorrectly did before your 1st change), can take some time to show up in articles. I think those 2 categories should be restored, between the  tags. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Michael. I'm not surprised I've stuffed it up, oh great IT guru that I am. :)


 * I was addressing the issue that all the individual works linked on that template are ending up in the categories Category:Solo piano works by composer templates and Category:Sonatas by composer templates, and they shouldn't be there. The only items that should appear in those categories are, by definition, templates.  Schubert's are the only templates where this happens.


 * If you can correct this error in a more efficacious way than I have hitherto fumblingly attempted, please be my guest. Cheers.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * was correct. I visited a few articles with that template, and the wrong categories were still shown – until I purged those articles and they disappeared. This will take some time to happen on its own, but eventually it'll all be good. Thanks. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Michael. I've now purged all of them.  They're still not showing up as gone from the category, but that will no doubt happen soon.  Thanks for the enlightenment.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

In Memoriam C.T.W. Sometime Trooper of the Royal Horse Guards. Obiit H.M. Prison, Reading, Berkshire, July 7th, 1896
Re: this, I would suggest the execution of Wooldridge is highly relevant to the poem and the article. DuncanHill (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * So, I said there seems to be no relevance, and now you're suggesting the opposite is the case. The onus is on you to demonstrate the relevance, good sir.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  05:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * As the lead goes on to say, just two sentences after the piece you excised, "The poem narrates the execution of Wooldridge...". And in the very last sentence of the main part of the article "Wilde did acknowledge (evidently to several people, since numerous separate sources recalled this) a glaring error in the very first line of the poem, "He did not wear his scarlet coat" — because Wooldridge, as a member of the Royal Horse Guards, had a blue uniform —, but justified this poetic license because the second line would make no sense if it said "For blood and wine are blue"" I would suggest that the event that inspired the poem, and provided its dedicatee, is relevant to both the poem and to an encyclopaedic article about the poem. DuncanHill (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see that now, Duncan. It still reads, at first glance, as if it were unrelated to the foregoing, as if it were just a piece of historical trivia that some inexperienced editor had just stuck into the middle of the lede.  That's what tripped me up earlier.  Readers still need to do some work to find out what this hanging is all about in this context.  I'll think about recasting it so that it flows better.  Cheers.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  09:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Well I suppose you could put the bit about "the poem narrates..." before that paragraph, or readers could actually read the next couple of sentences, or would that be too much work? DuncanHill (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for closing four discussions
Hello, currently there are four discussions which were initiated over changing the content. There was dispute as to which content was more accurate. I previously requested to other users, but they cant do it for some or other technical reasons (not excuses), so I humbly request you to take appropriate decision for the discussion, and close it with proper reasoning (similar to what you did with "main stumbling block). Thanks a lot.

The discussions are: this, that, this, and that. Thanks a lot. :-) — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (talk)  20:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm not an administrator, and I have had zero involvement in these 4 discussions, so it's not my place to intervene in the way you request.  Sorry.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

a reply to you which I thought better of
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk&diff=781182262&oldid=781174887

—Steve Summit (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Thanks, I think.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * (Don't worry, I'm not including you among the idiotic regulars! :-) ) —Steve Summit (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Phew! :)  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyedit please...?
I once again ask for your services to this little piece I love. It wasn't easy to find sources so I checked my liner notes from CDs. I added the lyrics since they are short and not copyrighted. Thanks again and I owe you Triplecaña (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

John Forrest

 * Crowley seems to have missed the fact that Forrest's peerage is clearly listed here in the authoritative Debrett's Peerage and Gentry: https://books.google.com/books?redir_esc=y&id=PNc7AQAAMAAJ&dq=%22Baroness+Forrest%22&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22Baroness+Forrest%22
 * Even if a peerage was not legally created, customary practice in the UK allows someone to be styled quite correctly as a peer: see for example Charles Stuart, Duke of Cambridge (1677)
 * At best, there is uncertainty as to whether the Forrest peerage is deemed to have been created. Lord Forrest has been universally styled as a peer in most official government publications and monuments in both the UK and Australia. I argue that 1). His peerage might have been lawfully created; 2). even if it was not, it is perfectly correct by virtue of customary practice and common use to refer to him as a peer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.216.88.175 (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Ivo van Hove sort
Regarding at Ivo van Hove where you changed the defaultsort from "Van Hove, Ivo" to "Hove, Ivo van". Please look at how the Dutch article is sorted, and, more importantly, what WP:Categorization of people says about Belgian names. I think "Van Hove, Ivo" should be restored. Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, fair enough. Feel free to revert me.  Thanks.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  13:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Peter MacCallum
post-nominal convention would normally place initials of minor military medals AFTER those of fellowships... only VC is used first--Stephencdickson (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi. In a strictly medical context that convention may apply.  But in general encyclopedic contexts, all formal postnominals awarded by governments precede any professional postnoms.


 * Can you show me where your theory is specified? Thanks.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)