User talk:JackofOz/Archive 39

< sort?
See Category:Low-importance New York City articles for Copacabana (nightclub) sorting with "<", and the presence or absence of  in the External links section makes no difference in the sort order. Perhaps you can figure that out.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Already responded at Talk:Copacabana (nightclub). --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  01:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Chryshantha De Silva
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Chryshantha De Silva &mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Dan arndt (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Polite request re hats on refdesk
Hey, JackofOz, from a fellow Aussie. I have zero objection to your recent hat of an "inappropriate personal exchange" on the humanities refdesk.

Just a polite request: It was agreed by consensus (and encoded in the guidelines, as per my suggestion), would it be possible to sign your hatting statements in the future please? We sometimes have disputes over whether something should have been hatted or not, and knowing who did the hatting makes it easier.

For the full and brief discussion of my accepted proposal on the matter, see Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_126.

Thanks for all your work. :-) Eliyohub (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oops. My bad.  Must. Do. Better.
 * Thanks. For. The. Reminder. Cheers. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Johannes Brahms, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A German Requiem ([//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Johannes_Brahms check to confirm] | [//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Johannes_Brahms?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Divorced First Ladies
In response to a comment you made on the Talk page for Betty Ford, she was not the first divorced First Lady. Rachel Jackson, the wife of President Andrew Jackson would have been if she had not died right before the inauguration, and then there was Florence Kling, the wife of President Warren G. Harding, who actually did become First Lady.

Regarding "First Lady," I am reminded of a scene on the Beverly Hillbillies television show. The Clampetts are visiting Washington, D.C., and someone mentions the First Lady. Granny wants to know who that is, and she is told that is how they refer to the President's wife. Granny, "I bet the other President's wives don't appreciate that crack." John Paul Parks (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  04:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Communist Party of Australia
I just reverted Communist Party of Australia to the last "clean" version before an communist IP and another Communist found it. They object to the article mentioning that the modern Australian socialist and communist parties are politically insignificant, even though a cursory look at Federal election stats indicates that overt socialist parties get less than 4 percent of the overall vote. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 09:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Mixing in &mdash; as little sympathy as I have for communists, I think it's reasonable to object to the characterization of 4% as "insignificant". That's a percentage that can easily have an impact on the overall outcome, even if those parties don't wind up represented in Parliament. --Trovatore (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * All are welcome here; but I'm a but mystified about why this discussion is being held here. I've never edited Communist Party of Australia. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Completely Wrong
I made an edit to the Second Turnbull Ministry article. I almost quoted directly from The Guardian on-line Australian Edition. You removed it, with the remark "completely wrong". I am dismayed that, what I considered a "trusted source," was "completely wrong". What mistakes did that article make? What really happened? Thanks, Nick Beeson (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Nwbeeson: Your edit said as follows:
 * ''On 27 October 2017, the Australian High Court dismissed seven members of Parliament. These seven belong to the parties forming the government, and their loss caused the government to lose it Parliamentary majority. They were ousted because they hold dual citizenship, which Section 44 of the Australian Constitution prohibits.


 * (a) The High Court didn't "dismiss" or "oust" anyone. It found that five (5) of the seven members were ineligible to have been candidates and to have been elected, hence their membership of the parliament ceases immediately (except that two of them had already voluntarily resigned; the decision in relation to those two affects only how their replacement is determined). The remaining 2 were not ineligible, and they can remain in Parliament.


 * (b) Only Joyce, Nash and Canavan were members of the governing National Party. The other four were not: Waters and Ludlam are Greens ex-senators, Roberts was a One Nation senator, and Xenophon is leader of the Nick Xenophon Team senators.


 * (c) The only people in this lot that affected the government in any way were Joyce (MP) and Nash (Senator), as Canavan was not ruled ineligible. The only effect on the Government's majority, which is determined in the House of Representatives, was the loss of Joyce. The government still has 75 out of 149 members, a majority. True, the Speaker does not normally vote, but he does have a casting vote in the case of a tied vote, and he would support the government. In addition, the government has the support of at least the independent Cathy McGowan in matters of confidence and supply. The government would certainly survive any vote against them, assuming all government members vote for the government.  The situation is undesirable from their point of view, but not as dire as the bald statement "their loss caused the government to lose it [sic] Parliamentary majority" would seem to suggest.


 * So many things wrong in a relatively short post. That's why I reverted your edit and said what I said in my edit summary.  Cheers. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Replacement of disputed notification
As mentioned there, I have replaced a disputed notification [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AReference_desk&type=revision&diff=807833127&oldid=807832588]. Since the purpose of the notification is simply to inform others of the discussion, my replacement notification serves the same purpose and does not get into the tricky issue of modifying the text of a signed post nor in preserving the text which has been called canvassing. I don't see that there is any text in the section I deleted which either relates to how to improve the RD, or is necessary for notifying people about the ANI discussion, or even helps us grow as a community. I did mention the earlier discussion I removed since otherwise people may get confused or complain, but intentionally did not provide a history link. If people look it up, that's their choice, I don't see there is much better we can do now which isn't going to just result in more dispute. In otherwords, either we leave it at that, or we risk blowing up the dispute even more, perhaps to the extent of derailing the ANI discussion. The choice is yours. I'm leaving this message on the talk page of everyone who participated in the section I removed. Nil Einne (talk) 11:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for attempting to bring back (and strike out) the original deleted Ref Desk talk page notification
I realize you spent time to add what you thought was a useful contribution, only to have it summarily deleted by another. Here you have a small sample of what that feels like. Hope it doesn't happen too often for you. StuRat (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, "useful contribution" is not how I'd characterise the paragraph of yours that I restored, stricken. But others just don't get to delete parts of others' posts without at least leaving evidence that that has occurred.  Cheers.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  18:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I was saying that you thought spending your time doing that was a useful contribution. StuRat (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, cool. Thanks.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Spelling is a lost art
See here:. At time index 1:56:05, they actually managed to misspell the name of the movie, Star Trek: Starfleet Academy. Meanwhile, there are many ads on TV here for lawyers, who apparently can't even manage to write a coherent sentence for the script in their ads. This doesn't give me much confidence in their legal acumen. StuRat (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Sad, very sad, Stu. The prevailing attitude seems to be "Do as well as you can, but if you make some spelling errors, it doesn't really matter because readers will know what you mean, and that's the important thing".  That's like saying "Build this house with red bricks, but if a few light-coloured ones creep in, it won't matter since the house will still be structurally sound".  The online world has become populated with colour-blind bricklayers.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * My house has such mixed color bricks. I assume they did that because they thought it was more interesting than one solid color.  Another possibility is so that, if one needs to be replaced, it won't look so out of place, as matching the exact color of a brick from 90 years ago could be tricky. StuRat (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * A deliberate mixture of colours is one thing. Random errors is quite another.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change
 * → -- Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]

to
 * →-- Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  09:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Anomalocaris (talk) 10:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

 * Approved on 4 January 2018. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
Happy Holidays text.png Hello JackofOz: From high in the Canadian Arctic I hope you enjoy the holiday season, the Winter or Summer Solstice, Quviahugvik, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah or even the Saturnalia, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Adapted from Season's Greetings


 * Thanks, Mr C B Weather. And season's greetings from Down Here all the way to Up There.  :)  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, and the same from the Great Hot South! --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

 * You're welcome, and thanks for the good wishes. Same to you, MarnetteD.  Be merry.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  08:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Your move of Governor-general
Hi there. I have reverted your move of Governor-general to Governor-General per a request at WP:RM/TR.

The current name of the article was decided per a 2015 discussion; because of this, another discussion will need to be held if you want the page at a different title. Please follow the instructions set forth at WP:RM if you wish to proceed with such discussion. Thank you. Sky Warrior  19:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted
Hello JackofOz. Your account has been added to the " " user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk. The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
 * Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
 * Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.


 * Thanks for this. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jill Kitson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Katoomba ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Jill_Kitson check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Jill_Kitson?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Sinéad O'Connor
I've made a couple of changes, regarding her name. Happy to discuss further. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, User:Ghmyrtle, I managed to miss this till now. I was in the midst of getting ready to move house, and chaos ruled.  Cheers.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  09:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Precious six years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

... and then, on Friday 13 February 2015, my granddaughter RoXi was born. What a special day! :) --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  09:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Lovely. Someone dear to my heart was also born on a 13th, but a Tuesday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Operas based on real people
Good category, I've added Nixon in China and Powder Her Face. Where do you think The Rape of Lucretia and Nabucco should go? Historical, but perhaps mythical. There's also Don Carlos at least; Narky Blert (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, Maria Stuarda. Narky Blert (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard Conrad, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages La Cage aux Folles and Henry Bishop ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Richard_Conrad check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Richard_Conrad?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Schubert's sexuality
I believe Schubert's music would be very affected by his sexuality. His music would probably have a very different style if he were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin Cole Thomas (talk • contribs) 22:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * If he were what? Why are you raising this with me?  --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Roger East (journalist)
Hey my friend, can you give Roger East (journalist) a look over/fix-up? Please? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Very belatedly, I made a few tweaks, but it's pretty good. Cheers. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

oh no
Here it comes .... Antandrus (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Grits teeth ... --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  07:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Defaultsort
Hi, thanks for your edit in Category:Films directed by Anjan Dutt. Do you know how to add defaultsort here: Category:Films directed by Nandita Roy and Shiboprosad Mukherjee (they are director-duo)? Thanks. --Titodutta (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Done. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited BBC Singers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Poole ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/BBC_Singers check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/BBC_Singers?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi
HI

Lomrjyo (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Gorzanis, Galilei, Bartolotti, Carbonchi
Greetings: Since you are the creator of the article Music written in all major and/or minor keys I thought I'd ask you first. If you take a look at the section Bach and his precursors the four earliest names that come up are (chronologically) Gorzanis, Galilei, Bartolotti and Carbonchi. Unfortunately some the links seem to be no more.1 Do you happen to have any more information on them (sourced or not) than what is in the article? I'd like to know how the pieces in the works by Gorzanis and Galilei were arranged? Were they arranged according to the circle of 5ths? Thanks. Basemetal 14:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

1 to have ceased to be, to be expired and gone to meet their maker, to be stiffs, to be bereft of life, to rest in peace...

PS: Looking at the history of the article I've discovered the claim about those works by Gorzanis was never sourced. The one about Galilei's may have been (to a web page) but it's hard to tell because the link is dead. The claims about the works by Bartolotti and Carbonchi were sourced to web pages which have now disappeared but were preserved in the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. Shouldn't at least the Gorzanis and Galilei examples be deleted if one went by the customary deletionist standard? Is there something different in this case that they shouldn't? What do you think? Basemetal 11:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I have this on my list of things to do. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok. I might get there first. If you look at this you see that the same claims are made but this time with links to Grove Online (in fact this might be where those deceased web pages got their info in the first place). I don't suppose you've got access? Me neither, but I might be able to find in this place someone who does. Basemetal  01:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Nope, sorry. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  03:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)