User talk:JackofOz/Archive 5

Helen Mirren edits
It might be better to explain that in the body of the articke rather than just using the tag. People will see her title, and thing either the titling or tag are incorrect. Describing the declining of the Honour might bridge the gap and explain matters better. Maybe you can find a place to add when she has declined title, with a citation. That would be awesome.Arcayne 08:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you getting back to me in a timely fashion, Jack. Regarding the Helen Mirren investiture. I think it prudent to reference within the article the process by which she refused one investiture for a lower ranking, but later accepted a higher one (I didn't even know that was or could be done). I don't think we can include her in a category that defines her without including a summary or whatnot of the original declination (and maybe reasons, which might make for noteworthiness) and the subsequent acceptance. You seem like a reasonable enough fellow, and I think that if you still genuinely disagree with me on this, there might be others who disagree as well. We can remove the category listing and discuss it on the Discussion page until some concensus is reached.Arcayne 19:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Works (selection)

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

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


 * The other Marx


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

Of Truth, Facts and Cucumbers
I promise, Jack, for once I'm sending you a note involving absolutely no wiki-politics!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take it easy, Jack.

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


 * Now that I understand better how wiki works, and how everything is "etched in stone", so to speak, in the your page's history, I took the liberty of deleting my last paragraph, as I think it would be impolitic to leave it there. Now that you've read it, if you feel it more appropriate to respond by email, by all means. My apologies if I was overstepping my bounds.


 * With regards to the "fact" thing, it would seem that what you seem to be defining as "fact", is what would seem to me to be more appropriately termed "dogma".


 * Alas, the chef's of the world haven't yet formed a multi-zillion dollar organization and level of immense authority to enforce their dogma, and persecute those who dare question their decidedly pro-vegetable interpretation of the status and nature of the all-important cucumber, yet one can only dream of the magnificent utopia a chefocracy would be.


 * I believe there was once a great man who once said "Sometimes a cucumber is just a cucumber" ... or at least something like that.


 * Sorry, I'm just in a bit of a loopy mood, as you would put it. :)


 * In any case, more fully understanding your view, I now can't help but say I disagree with it ... but what healthy friendships don't have their share of violent disagreements such as these?


 * Take good care, Jack. Looking forward to a vicious rebuttle! :--)


 * Lewis Loomis 12:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Keeping calm on ref. desk...vs. tolerating anti-semites

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

Thanks for adding a great article about an important Australian, Garrie 01:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Happy St Paddy's day to you. Of course, we're all Irish on that one special day ;)....
 * John Carne Bidwill uses the template undefined, there are a few others... pretty much if Project Gutenberg of Australia has an entry for FJ, it's probably the easiest one to use (in that, I know it's name ;-^) )Garrie 00:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Rebecca
Hello

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

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

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


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

Help desk "agression"
Yeah, I was sorta uncivil with my suggestion, but it really bugs me that some people just direct anons and IPs to articles and hope for the best. Thanks, AMP&#39;d 19:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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

See also: --Shirt58 14:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Your reply made my day - big smiles all around the possums in the Shirt household. Mmm. Dark cloud in an otherwise clear blue sky, however: what's the situation with you and Loomis? Looking at the archives, you two so seemed to be wikifriends for so long. I'm worried that it's going to escalate from your user:talk pages to all those template wiki:ACRONYMS...
 * Leet
 * Internet slang
 * QWERTY
 * Emus to Chile
 * Rat Stew
 * If woken, a wimp ended, sir!
 * Hi Jack of Oz, and (perhaps bold, definitely bold, marginally bold and not quite bold) thank you baby for your reply.
 * Anyways. Thanks again. --Shirt58 14:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Best wishes,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Cheer Up
Thanks Jack:) I know he has dug his own proverbial hole...but he still gets to me sometimes.  Just erks me the wrong way.  I let him get to me, but from now on, I am just going to be nice, quote rules, and move on to more enjoyable things:). Take Care and Rock on....SVRTVDude (Yell 07:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Jack, I appreciate your efforts to reach out to Orangemonster. Please do be careful when you're giving such advice, though, not to give the impression that it's mostly Calton's fault. (Aside from being inaccurate, giving such an impression to a party to a dispute often emboldens them to continue behaving inappropriately. It stokes the flames, and tends to lead to further incivility and blocks.)

In this particular case, there's definitely a 'takes-two-to-tango' aspect. Orangemonster was edit warring over a point that had been discussed on the article's talk page. While I hesitate to declare a clear consensus in that discussion, the weight of the arguments and participants was definitely not on Orangemonster's side. The article had already been protected once due to revert warring, which should usually be a sign to involved parties that they're on thin ice. Orangemonster's attempt and failure – twice – to play a 3RR 'gotcha' on Calton certainly didn't cool the tone of the discussion.

It doesn't help that the two of them were at each other's throats during the ignominious return of Gordon Watts; see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive199 for a small sample of that history. (That's just the first thing that I ran across with Google, there are other more extensive discussions.)

Calton is argumentative, and sometime has a short fuse. His remarks often brush – or cross over – the border of civil behaviour. I don't recall a case where his participation has had the effect of calming down a dispute, though perhaps we just don't hear about those cases on WP:AN/I. I have in past issued him warnings about his conduct. However, in this case, and most cases that I've seen, there are two things that tend to insulate him from admin action. First, the positions that he takes are usually correct from a Wikipedia policy and guideline standpoint. Second, the parties he is in a dispute with very seldom have clean hands themselves. They have often, in their turn, been incivil, or edit warring, or otherwise unpleasant. Short of blocking both parties – which often just leads to a resumption of hostilities a day later – there is little that can be done. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Win-win
Hello Jack. I was interested to read your referral to a win-win scenario on the Ref Desk. Do you have a mechanism in mind that could achieve that goal? Personally I think the suggestion anyone can "win" is personalising the issue and part of the problem, not the solution. Despite what StuRat thinks, I really don't mind whether I "win" or "lose". What I would like is a set of guidelines that formed in a way contributors can respect - whatever they may be - and the only way to do that is to form a consensus. If I don't like what the community wants out of a Ref Desk, I will stop frequenting it as there are plenty of other parts of the project that I am involved in. This is the only way I can think of resolving this difference on opinion. If you have any other ideas, then It would be great to hear them, but I don't think keeping the status quo is a healthy option. Rockpock e  t  22:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Jack, thanks for your thoughts. Its an honest, fair philosophy you espouse; one I widely agree with. However, I'm not sure it fits in entirely with the Wikipedian system. For example, there are lots of interactions here that are certainly not win-win (the way we block vandals or those who edit maliciously), because sometimes people have agendas so different from that of the project that to compromise would invalidate the entire purpose of Wikipedia. Those people are certainly not winners by the outcome, anyway you cut it.
 * Now, I'm not suggesting the Ref Desk issue is a strict example one of these, and I do think there is space to find an acceptable compromise, but at some point - when the purpose of the project is being abused - there has to be a line drawn in the sand. In this situation it no longer is a case of respecting differences in individual opinion, its a case of enforcing policy. The problem comes with the interpretation of policy, of course. That is where relationships break down and claims of admin abuse arrive. (You know, since I have been an admin, I have noticed that there are certain situations where, no matter what you do prior, you will be accused of abuse by certain people as soon as you disagree with them. I have seen it before many times. Praised has been heaped on me by editors because I happened to act in a manner that they approved of. If the very next thing I do they disapprove of, complaints of bias or admin abuse are made. It is logically fallacious, of course, but that appears to be lost on them. I see the very same thing happen this week with StuRat and TenOfAllTrades and it basically sucked all the goodwill out of me. Its very hard to have any respect for an editor when you see that).


 * Anyway, back to the point. On the Ref Desk I don't believe "all contributions are of equal value" for the reader. Empirically speaking, that simply cannot be true. However, I do believe that all types of contributions can be of equally valuble - i.e. a reader could get as much out of a well constructed opinion or analysis than a simple link to a reference. Often that is not the case, however, and I think on average sourced content is better because the quality of informed opinion varies wildly. But I'm realistic enough to realise we have to have some leeway here. Its for this reason that I don't have a problem with tolerating opinions as answers, or even limited discussion when it is on topic. What I do believe is important is that contributors are fully informed about what kind of information they are getting. My biggest frustration is seeing personal opinion phrased as fact. And it gets even more frustrating when individuals then criticize (sourced) fact with their personal opinion (disguised as fact). I think this is very misleading to the reader, and a perfect example of respondents' egos getting out of control. So, despite all the rhetoric about deletionism and elitism attributed to me by others, all I really am proposing is that answers be prefaced with an honest disclaimer that what follows is speculation, opinion, original analysis, fact (as far as they are concerned, albeit unsourced) or fact (sourced). If individuals are willing to do that then I don't see a problem with any genuine attempt to impart knowledge constructively. To that end, there does appear (to me) to be moves towards this by some editors (including StuRat, who appears to have gone one step further and moves speculative answers to another place) which I applaud. This would essentially resolve my issues with the Ref Desk (though I can't speak for others).


 * I apologise for the rambling nature of this reply (I'm not even sure it fully addresses your comments, to be honest), but its late here and I need to sleep. Although I think we probably have somewhat different perspective on this issue, I greatly respect your contributions to the Ref Desk, and the discussion around it. I guess I wanted to engage to try and move the discussion forward towards a solution, and I can't seem to make any progress towards that on the Ref Desk discussion itself. Rockpock  e  t  07:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Your Siloti spelling edit 66.183.208.246 02:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear Jack:

First, my thanks for your contribution to the Siloti website. Much appreciated.

Second, a substantiation of the spelling commentary. In my book, I documented (as best I could) the long-held belief in the Siloti family that the 'Italian' spelling correctly represented the likelihood that their forebears migrated to Russia from Firenze, or Genoa, in the early 16th C. These claims were made without proof, but in perfect earnestness.

Indeed, the family believes that they began as 'Silotti', passed through the Balkans, and once settled in Ukraine became 'Ziloti'. When Alexander gained fame in the West, they became 'Siloti' all over again.

Go figure.

Thanks once more,

Charles

Dr Charles Barber (MA, DMA Stanford) 'Lost in the Stars: The Forgotten Musical Life of Alexander Siloti'


 * Dear Charles, thanks for your feedback. It's great to have such an affirmation as this.  Transliteration of Russian names (particularly names that originally came from other languages) is one of my special interests.  There's so much inconsistency, it's a wonder we can get any pronunciations correct.  My favourite is "Tchaikovsky" - the cluster "tch" appears in no language I know of, at the start of a word.  Yet, this is the compromise we all have to live with now.  For a while (and maybe still), Grove listed him as "Chaykovsky", which was certainly closer to a proper English transliteration, except that nobody would ever look for him under an initial other than T.  Then there's "Chaliapin" - the French version Chaliapine has been abridged, so we end up with a transliteration that doesn't sit well with any language.  As you say, go figure.  Technical accuracy sometimes has to take a back seat.  Thanks again.  JackofOz 02:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

re: tchaikovsky
As a Russian scholar, you might be familiar with Radio Yerevan. Did you know they were asked the eternal Tchaikovsky question as well? Armeniapedia has the joke at the bottom of this section. Take care, Jack. ---Sluzzelin talk  13:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Responding to suicidal individuals
Hi JackofOz. I would like to invite you to commenting upon or edit the new proposed policy Responding to suicidal individuals now that it has finally come up for discussion on Village pump (policy) and Requests_for_comment/Policies. Hopefully we can reach consensus (or not) within a week or two. Thanks! S.dedalus 23:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Jahbulon-with-a- J
Great remark on the dubious qualities of US Presidents (Humanities Reference Desk, April 13, 3.10)! Better you than me, since we expats are subject to suspicion as to our loyalties to the old homeland (whose citizenship I not only retain but have arranged for my offspring). I owe you an answer, by the way, about whether you can call me "DJ" — well, sure, but not so sure I'll answer to that form. The Deborahjay moniker exists outside of Wikipedia as well, in RL as well as in the ether. It started as an in-your-face furrin' abbreviation of my married surname, that starts with this letter that doesn't exist in the Hebrew language (that of my adopted homeland). "Jest a joke, son...!" Now that you're clued in, may I just take this opportunity to mention that I appreciate your tone on the RD scene, which helps balance mine that's so often tooooo serious (though the content, IMO, must be :-) Keep up the good work! -- Deborahjay 16:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Re "Stops"
I guess I could have been a little more precise when asking my question. I assumed that stops served some purpose along the lines of indicating a period or end of a paragraph, but I wasn’t really sure.

As for my educational background I went to grade school in the 90s and graduated from high school in 2005. I guess since I went to grade school just as the internet was beginning to become popular telegraphy was not thought of as something we would ever use, or need to know about. I went to private schools for grade school and high school and would consider the quality of education that I received to be above average. I now attend the University of Wisconsin Colleges. After attending a public college for the last two years it has become even more obvious that my education was better than many of my class mates, most of whom attended public grade/high schools. I definitely understand what you mean by seeing “more and more highly intelligent people having all kinds of what I would have thought were basic problems.” From my experience the people I know with the highest I.Q., G.PA., ACT scores… are some of the stupidest people I know when it comes to the problems of everyday life. Hopefully this answers your question, if you want to know anything else let me know. --ChesterMarcol 17:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

question
It doesn't really affect the page, but I was curious about your claim in your recent edit that the numbering system for minor planets was now defunct. It certainly appears to be in rude health to me. Serendipodous 06:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Stay cool
Please do not make personal attacks as you did on the Reference Desk. Thank you.--71.185.138.46 16:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A.Z.
Hi Jack. After unsuccessfully shopping for an admin that might support his and Loomis' position, and reactivating an discussion archived 3 times for being inappropriate, I have warned A.Z. this his comments are becoming disruptive. In his own interests, I'm going to refrain from further comment on his off-topic debate. I'd urge you do do likewise and hopefully this can finally be put to bed. Rockpock e  t  01:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I know the feeling, it can be incredibly difficult to resist replying sometimes. Anyway, I'm sorry you got dragged into a distracting meta debate over such a innocuous thing as expressing support for a core policy. Rockpock  e  t  04:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

clio's hair
i always had the picture of brown hair in my mind, never blonde! just goes to show you--Perry-mankster 10:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think she's just trying to fool us. Clio a blonde?  Impossible.  :)  JackofOz 10:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

re: smile
lol i Just noticed that a few seconds ago. I better copyedit no sorry "copedit" that!!! Smith Jones 01:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Mental images
In case you care, I pictured you in your thirties and with blonde hair. Dismas |(talk) 05:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

bovine bother
D'oh! for the Ox as for dr.ef.tymac get her! Perry-mankster 15:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Jack of All Trades

 * o) That one made me laugh!  That would have been something my great-great grandmother would have said.  Have a Good Day... SVRTVDude  (Yell 17:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Jack the Strong
G'day, Jack of Ox! From your posh-and blonde-pommy friend. Clio the Muse 22:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Howdy
Hey Jack, thanks for your efforts to get StuRat and I on the same page. A while ago we made an effort to understand each other a bit (see User:Friday/samepage which is probably too long to expect anyone to wade through) and I even considered looking for a mediator to help us out. StuRat wanted to keep it just between us at the time, but if we were to try something like that again it occurs to me you might make an excellent mediator if you were willing. If you wanted to get the gist of how we left things, see the last section User:Friday/samepage. From my view, StuRat seems to immediately reject any input from someone he labels a "deletionist". But, sadly, someone seems to get put into that category by disagreeing with him. So, basically, whoever he disagrees with is not someone who's opinions he will consider. Where did this leave us? Anyway it's certainly possible I've just let my personal irritation get the best of me. Maybe there's some easy way forward that I'm just unable to see right now. You seem like a reasonable guy and (perhaps even more importantly) StuRat doesn't appear to consider you an enemy. So any suggestions you may have are appreciated. Friday (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Adminship
Hi Jack. Did you see eric's comment? --Dweller 15:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Jack- don't look at adminship as a requirement that you now spend your time differently than before. Having the few extra buttons is useful even if you only have reason to use them once in a while. Friday (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just in case
Just in case clarification is warranted or necessary, I do not consider myself any kind of "topic cop" on Wikipedia or RefDesk, and certainly would not presume to require "permission" as a prerequisite for addition of any content. Although my prior remarks may have caused some to infer the contrary, I do appreciate all kinds of discussion and tangents and humor and even (well-reasoned) disagreement.

Responsible adults who demonstrate good humor, consistency and capability in their endeavors (I believe) merit respect. It's fair to say you have done that and much more, at least where WP and the refdesk are concerned (at least from what I've read so far). Just in case it wasn't obvious, best regards and hats off, Jack! *bow* :) dr.ef.tymac 16:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

zzzzzzzzz
As someone who appreciates Zara Bate, Zeffirelli, Zaremba, Dr. Zhivago, and, of course, Piazzolla, I am very pleased to pass on this somewhat randomly received encyclopedic award to an entirely non-randomly selected editor. (You were the first z-user who came to mind and I hope you know how much your contributions are appreciated here). ---Sluzzelin talk  10:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it was done surrepitiously, but here's the zany, snazzy award, for all to see. ---Sluzzelin talk  10:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

oscar is all yours
dear jackofox(sorry the typo 'name' has stuck with me!)wonderful witty wilde is all yours (i only wanted/wished i had the man's wit and intellect!) you have oscar and i will take stephen (fry) take care Perry-mankster 12:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Your help is needed on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guidelines
Jack, you were keeping us from killing each other before, and we could use your help again. StuRat 17:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Cont. from Archived chat
Ha, I don't doubt for a moment that you're uniquely very unique. Unrelatedly, Oz is my nickname, derived from Azi (which is in turn my nickname derived from my full name)...so I suppose that could make me OzofJack (slang, 4th item down). Take care. :)  -- Azi Like a Fox 09:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WWJD
Asking What would Jack do? appears to be the only thing people can agree on at the Ref Desk at the moment. I hope you bear the burden better than the last chap ;) Rockpock  e  t  22:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd take it as a compliment that your judgement is well regarded by all. No mean feat considering the polarised range of opinion at the 'Desk. I'm actually tempted to write a, only slightly, satirical assay entitled What would Jack do? to codify the idea we should treat every editor's proposal as one of reason, rather than immediately dismissing it because of past disagreements. Would you object to that? Rockpock  e  t  01:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Now I feel under pressure! I'll perhaps sketch out the bones this evening. Rockpock  e  t  01:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Still only Thursday afternoon here, my friend, but thanks! Rockpock  e  t  02:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sir, may I present to you WP:JACK. I hope I got the point across. I appreciate it focuses on you personally, perhaps more that I first envisioned. But I figured that to better realise the metaphor, it should be kept specific. That said, if you are uncomfortable with it, I'll happily remove or change it. Rockpock e  t  06:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. Actually, while I do have enormous respect for your contributions, I don't really consider the essay to be primarily a compliment to you, and certainly not meant to put you on a pedestal. In fact, quite the opposite. The point I'd hoped to make is that the premise on which we seek certain editors' approval, are often as fallacious as the reasons we dismiss other editors opinions. Most of the time the "good guys" and "bad guys" are not really so different - the difference is only in the perception of the person making the distinction.
 * Secondly, while you are obviously referred to specifically, the original reasons I made the connection to WWJD was because of the acronym, and also because "Jack" has a element of generality to it (as in Jack of all trades, I suppose). The "Jack" I'm referring to means really means "the guy everyone looks to for approval to legitimize their argument", of which most conflicts have one. You just happen to be a handy personification of that. Perhaps I didn't make these clear enough and will tinker with it to try and get that across. Rockpock  e  t  07:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Are your ears burning? My apologies, Jack, for so casually bringing you into another silly dispute. I shouldn't bandy your name about lightly; it's just that there are so few people in the Ref Desk kerfuffle who are respected and listened to by the most extreme parties there. Rockpocket's hit the nail on the head with WP:JACK, I think. Your conduct has become a standard to which we all should aspire. Sorry about that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Not only did it make me giggle, it's good advice. There's a little bit of Jack in all of us. Well, not so much me, as I tend to be surly, but hopefully there's some Jack in most of us. Just the same, Jack, you may want to keep your head down in case there are Pharisees about. Friday (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Help?
Do you think you can help me with my questions:


 * Reference_desk/Humanities


 * Reference_desk/Humanities


 * Reference_desk/Humanities

--Goingempty 01:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Care to offer an opinion ?
Jack, would you care to offer an opinion on this: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/guidelines ? StuRat 02:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Adminship
Please, accept the nomination for you to become an administrator. A.Z. 00:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the vote of confidence in me, A.Z. I do appreciate it, truly.  I still feel very much disinclined to do this, but am not completely closed to the possibility.  So, anyone with persuasive powers is welcome to try them out on me.  But be warned, the penalty for failing to persuade me is death.  :)  JackofOz 00:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you are worried about the responsibility. It would surely exist and it would be great, but I would not watch you to see whether you are using the tools "often enough", for instance. I agree with Friday on that one: you may spend months without using the tools, and that won't make you a bad administrator.


 * What I like about you is that you seem to hear other people, and that is a great quality in an administrator. Even if you take measures that I disagree with, I know you will at least hear with respect what my complaints are and why I disagree with you, and you won't tell me and other people to just shut up or go complain to other administrators. That quality of yours must be why you are the only one trusted by all. A.Z. 01:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And you have the option of resigning, if something starts bothering you. A.Z. 02:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Things you may find amusing...

 * Talk:Twenty20


 * Reference_desk/Language, but quick, before it gets archived. (Check out 58.108.25.222's other edits.  Funny  Cravat vandalism aplenty there.)

Best regards, from both the hominids (3) and non-hominids (2) (oh, alright: also the possums that live in the roof that we, ahem, 'dissuade' from so doing by giving them cherry tomatos and patting them ... and the spiders in the ceiling/wall corners because they 'catch flies' (= we're too soft-hearted to Mortein them) too...) in the Shirt household, to you and yours, both hominid and non-hominid, in the JoO household. --Shirt58 11:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Couve de Murville
You're quite right about Archbishop Maurice Noël Léon Couve de Murville. I should have seen that before I took it out. I like where you've replaced it, though. I think we've got the best of both worlds. Scolaire 09:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. JackofOz 00:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Charles, Prince of Wales
Hi, I am not contesting your recent edits, but unfortunately the editor before you was a nasty vandal. The vandalism was subsequently partially reverted, but I was unable to revert the remaining vandalism - and that of a subsequent vandal, without reverting your edits too. I have tried, and I hope succeeded, in restoring these, but please could you check my restoration and correct if necessary. Thanks. Viewfinder 09:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. Everything seems in order.  Thanks for your concern.  --  JackofOz 23:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Help
Hi first of all apologies for any errors and mistakes with grammar

I usually only add information to the Mary Hopkin page, I noticed you have recently tried to correct vandalism on there...

Any idea who is doing it and can it be stopped?

I have tried to put as much right as I can, but without making excuses I am partially sighted and I find these pages very difficult to navigate never mind see!!! thanks anyway and sorry to bother you pat


 * Hi Pat. The user who did this seems to an unregistered user, whom we call 202.40.210.164.  You can check everything he/she's done on Wikipedia by clicking on the History tab at Mary Hopkin, then finding their user name (just below mine).  Click on their user name and a list of their User Contributions will come up.  Their talk page is here.  He/she seems to have gone off elsewhere to do something else.  The Mary Hopkin page seems ok now, but I'll keep an eye on it.  Thanks for the alert, and happy Wikipedaing.  --  JackofOz 00:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

wiki-embarrassment
Hi jack, further to your question about the above, when reading other text on-line, such as a newspaper/document etc and i come across a word or topic i don't know or wish to increase my knowledge of, i find myself reaching for the mouse, as thou i can just click on it to find out more. Have not started doing this when reading a (paper) book...yet Perry-mankster 13:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

New Topic, New Baby
If this works, then I have just taught myself how to start a new topic. As for naming your next daughter after me, I promise, should you do so, I shall fly, first class, to attend at the christening. (I think we are both quite safe from having to fulfil our promises.) Thank you for much entertaining reading. You and Clio are always worth seeking out. Bielle 05:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I had seen your photo and read your bio, which is why I felt quite secure about the commitment. First class, Toronto to the Land of Oz, east or west, would do severe damage to the family fortunes. I have been down under, 1984-5, though I flew with the plebs for the first part of the journey. Then: train from Melbourne to Adelaide to Perth, bus from Perth up to pearl country and the northwest mountains, across to Darwin and Townsville and into the Red Rock at the centre, back out again to Cairns (without an "r", it seems) and the Big Reef, and then through Brisbane south to Sydney. This took me 6 weeks. The only bit I haven't done is the southeast corner, from Sydney to Melbourne, the area most visitors see. Oh yes, and I didn't get to Tasmania. Oh well, one day. . . Bielle 05:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Symphony No. 1 (Tchaikovsky)
I've redone and greatly expanded this article; though it may not seem complete (at least it doesn't to me), it's at least solid. I'd really appreciate it if you'd look it over. I'm good on first and second drafts but not so good on polishing and finer points sometimes, as you are.

Thanks very much,

Jonyungk 02:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking this over, Jack. I'm really looking forward to what else you may come up with.

Meanwhile, you brought up an extremely relevant point—namely, how much of the material really relates directly to Winter Daydreams and how much at least borders on wandering off-topic. With this in mind, I went back through the "Influences" section last night, cutting and condensing to about half of what was previously there. I'll go through the rest of the article as time permits, but whatever you come up with in the meantime would be great, as well.

Again, thanks!

Jonyungk 15:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Mary Hopkin
The person vandalising the Mary Hopkin page is SICK... She is alive and VERY well... Pat, Temmaharbour

Clio is back
I have reconsidered, thanks to you and others like you, Jack. You will find a note of explanation on my talk page. Love Clio the Muse 00:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Surprised
Thanks for your reply about travels in the land of Oz. I wasn't expecting a comment, having become aware from your postings about other matters - e.g. about A.Z. who seems to be very good at getting attention- that you are not in favour of making Wiki a social site. I don't disagree, so was pleasantly surprised that you did respond. Your partner is brave to be heading back to where he could be shot just for existing. If you get to meet the great Clarke, please let as all know. I am heading for Alaska in October, just for a sail up the coast, though, and then back all the way south to San DiegoBielle 02:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Mini rants
Did you say at the reference desk that mine and StuRat's comments were off-topic? If yes, how come?

By the way, I really have no idea about whether you were really talking about our comments. It's just that, for me, they were really non-controversial, normal, and interesting. I also don't know if you are joking or talking about something else, but, if you are, it would be rather strange to say it on that thread. At first, I thought you were talking about comments that had been deleted from the thread. A.Z. 23:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, what were you referring to, when you said on the same thread linked above, that "that was a very negative comment"? A.Z. 23:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, A.Z.  I've responded on the relevant Humanities page.  Cheers  --  JackofOz 01:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I like it that you said "hi". Sorry that I didn't say "hi" on my post. Bye. A.Z. 03:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Rugby Butt
If this sporting controversy had happened in the last day or so, I might just have been mildly amused at the speed of your answer. Given it took place in 2001, you have proved yourself right up there with the "highest and best" responders, even if the topic was not the usual stuff of academia. I laughed out loud. Bielle 03:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Little Jack knows about thumbs and is a good boy. ---Sluzzelin talk  04:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry :(
I must admit to being a dirty little vandal, I altered the desert question on the science desk so that everyone said dessert. i'm still giggling though. 213.48.15.234 13:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ex-Pats
Good catch on the "expatriates" on the Ref Desk. "Ex-pat" is such a handy little short cut, but somewhat ambiguous, as you remind us. Thanks for the reminder. Bielle 16:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Tarts
Sorry to have used your name in vain (There must be a pun in there somewhere.) WRT a joke I was making with Clio about wild signatures. I just typed the first two User names that came into my head accompanied by "competent". I know I can't help her. Perhaps I would have been better to have used User:Lambiam instead. I hope I didn't interrupt anything important.Bielle 02:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

True Cross
Right, Jack! seeya!

--Amandajm 09:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Thanks
No problem mate. I'm just glad to know I helped. D4g0thur 23:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarens, not Clemens (Tchaikovsky)
Thanks for catching this, Jack—I must have had a Mark Twain moment when typing "Clemens."

Also, for some strange reason, I thought you meant including New Point of View instead of Neutral Point of View when you wrote "NPOV." Thanks again for going through "Pathétique as requiem." You really smoothed things out stylistically as well as adjusting the passge for a more NPOV. It reads great!

Jonyungk 14:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

John Smith Murdoch
Hmmm. We were at similar tasks at the same time, it seems. I hope that my fiddles with Murdoch and related things did not offend.- Peter Ellis - Talk 00:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Treasures
The little treasures - just take care with west oz ones - there is a wa category as well (and an art) - so there is a national and a wa state living treasure, sigh SatuSuro 07:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There was no issue - sorry - another way of saying it could have been - I had meant to say make sure there were no wa living treasures masquerading as national ones SatuSuro 10:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Australia
Thank you for fixing the language. WikiTownsvillian 08:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)