User talk:JackofOz/Archive 23

This is an archive of past discussions with User:JackofOz. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

A shocking bit of news. Franamax was an excellent user and admin. Nicely even-handed, good to work with, in my experience. Any idea what happened? (Unless it's not for public consumption.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it was total news to me, I'm afraid. I didn't have a strong relationship with him. I don't think we ever exchanged talkpage messages or anything like that, although we probably conversed on ref desk now and then, and certainly would have participated in the same threads. But it's always sad when one of our family passes on, no matter how slightly we may have known them. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Same for me, and I had just finished expanding Fauré's Requiem with Tim riley, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Did I hear John Donne down the corridor: Send not to ask for whom the bell tolls .... -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I heard Heather Begg sing (with your name in the history), turning to birthday. I would like to turn from Requiem to BWV 36, Soar joyfully aloft, - it would be easier if I didn't hear or feel old grudges so much, - very pleased that Tim returned! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Is the play Wicked_(musical) coming to Seattle in 2013 or 2014? Thanks! Neptunekh94 (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, but it's a musical, not a play as such. The **musical** Wicked is not coming to Vancouver in 1913. If there's a play called Wicked as well, I have no idea about it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I was asking about the musical and I asked if it was coming to Seattle, not Vancouver. Thank you though. The new OZ movie coming out next year looks good! Neptunekh94 (talk) 04:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to the question I answered about Vancouver, where the touring schedule is presented in all its glory. Unfortunately, you saw fit to remove the question and its answer, so I trust you have the smarts to track it down and look up the ref I gave you. Please in future do NOT remove answered questions or replace them with entirely unrelated questions.

Please ask your general info questions at the Ref Desk. I am not some guru about Wicked. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Jack! Your user name seems to say that you love the Wizard of OZ franchise but I'll take your word for it. Also, may I say you typed in 1913. An honest mistake I type the wrong years sometimes myself. Neptunekh94 (talk) 05:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, mistakes. Like referring to the musical Wicked as a play. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Pardon the intrusion, but "Oz" is also a nickname for Australia, right? Which, last time I checked, is nowhere near either Seattle or Vancouver, although the wonders of the Internet have overcome many limitations caused by distance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, double posts, but I got no answer on the humanities ref desk, that's why I posted it on the other. Keeeith (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You wait. The rules at the top (you have read them?) plainly say the answer may take a few days. Do not expect miracles, particularly for obscure questions. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Friedrich Weidemann, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Siegfried (check to confirm | 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) 11:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just spent the last 24 hours trying to figure out if I can do this without breaking the blender! Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

O.R. ALERT!!!  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Those 9 years sure went quickly! I don't feel a day older. Well, only sometimes.

See what fun you can have when you're given carte blanche to do as you please. Parents and governments, take note. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I will be sticking to this account. Don't worry. Venustar84 (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this. But then see this. Suddenly I'm wondering if the one nuisance user's casual mention of the other is more than a coincidence, if you see what I mean. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do see, Steve. I thought I'd made my point and I didn't have the energy to take it further. But it's good that other eyes are watching too. Eternal vigilance and all that. This "newby" has scored 3 out of 3 so far for contentious talk page edits. Not a great "start". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It's nice to have the feeling that when I drop off of the wikipedia twig, you'll still be there. Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm into my 10th year here, as of a couple of days ago. I expect Wikipedia will be around for some time yet, and I know of no better way of wasting time productively. You can depend on it.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 16:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Why, thank you, Bonkers. Yuletide felicitations to you, too. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hohoho! Yes yes, and remember to spread the joy! Rejoice! I suppose you do have a Christmas present prepared for me? Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 10:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not about the presents. It's about all those lovely feelings of love and joy and warmth and reconciliation and hope and promise. You know, all those messages the big retailers tell us what Christmas is all about. Well, if they don't know, who on Earth would? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Wise words for the season. :) Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 08:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

a fine voice, "basically a dramatic mezzo, with a warm middle register supporting strong top notes"? top! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Rosina. I saw her in Suor Angelica and Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny, you know. But that was over 25 years ago. How time flies. Thanks for the memories, Gerda. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Did she sing Rosina? That would have been a nice hook. But probably only sopranos sang the part her time. I will decorate my user for Christmas (started), no extra greetings, - you spoke well above about the spirit! I tried also ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for tweaking my newly created article, I tried to get it right from the first go, but you know how things are. I've outlined on the articles talk page the areas I think need attention.Graham1973 (talk) 11:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, Graham.

But "getting it right" is a toughie. Who decides when an article is so perfect that it does not need even a comma to be tweaked? We all try to make our creations the very best we can make them - then some brute like me comes along and makes changes. Then someone else, and someone else, and on it goes. And before long, what do you have? You have Wikipedia, that's what you have. Welcome.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not those changes I worry about. In any case I'm eyeing the Schubert Quartet Movement in C minor article for a rewrite/reformat at the moment. At least there seems to be more online for this one!Graham1973 (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm making a start at overhauling the Schubert Quartet Movement in C minor by stages, I hope to have something to replace the original background section online ready for upload soon. I'd love a helper on this as there is only so far I can go using program notes & old books (Though some have proved very useful.).Graham1973 (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll help out wherever I can. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, the updated background section has been uploaded. I'm currently trying to paraphrase the analysis provided by several different sets of program notes into something coherent. I've added internal links between the Schubert Quartet Movement in C minor article, the Dvořák Quartettsatz article and the Piano Quartet Movement in A minor article to all three and I'm thinking that the Mahler article needs a good rewrite as it contradicts itself rather a lot.Graham1973 (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Mahler Piano Quartet article is re-written and uploaded. I've marked all the items remaing that I feel need a citation.Graham1973 (talk) 10:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I've given it a look over. Nice work on the whole, Graham. I've just tweaked some formatting and wording and slightly adjusted the sequence of sections for better flow. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I restored the internal hyperlinks to the Schubert & Dvorak articles. I'm beginning preliminary research for an article on the Tchaikovsky Quartet Movement in B flat major, but am hitting contradictory information as to the size of the movement and it's structure. I might have to start hitting the libraries.Graham1973 (talk) 13:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The reason I removed those 2 links is that that they have no connection to the Mahler Quartet. There are many works that were left unfinished, so why single those 2 out? The only reason I can see why you have them in your mind is that you've been working on them recently, but that's of no moment to our readers. Categories help readers track down any other unfinished works they may be interested in; we don't have to specially mention our personal favourites. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed the See Also links from all three articles. I'm going to hold off on the Tchaikovsky Quartettsatz until I can firm up the details. I have manage to locate information on a more recent orphan first movement, the Allegretto that would have been the first movement of Shostakovich's String Quartet Nº 9, Op. 113 (It finally ended up being Op.117), either the version he threw into the fire or another version no one knew about until it was rediscovered in 2003. I should have enough for a short article in the style of the ones I've completed already.Graham1973 (talk) 12:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

	Umm... the 58 immediate family eat lots of tofu around this time of year
	My mum is a Cross-stitcher. Proudly displayed in one of her sister's wall is a cross-stitch with the overly sentimental message "Old Friends are Best Friends". Merry Christmas, old friend. Shirt58 (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr Shirt. Much appreciated. Compliments of the season to you as well. And may they continue beyond the season. What makes some people nice to know is that it's Christmas all year round with them. You know, the way things are supposed to be. But I'm preaching to the perverted converted here, I can tell. Yo ho ho. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. Tsk: "preaching to the perverted converted here", but we're all <long rambling rant snipped>. As always... could you possibly have a little look at Rosemary Sorensen? --Shirt58 (talk) 12:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas. Or, as we folk say:

Christos Razhdajetsja! Slavite Jeho!

μηδείς (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Medeis.

And C Рождеством Христовым и c Новым Годом to you, too.

May 2013 be the best yet. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Patricia Kennedy (actress), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie (check to confirm | 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) 11:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Jack and many thanks, I just couldn't work out how to that!

A very Merry Christmas to you and yours. Alansplodge (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Melbourne Meetup Next: 6 January 2013 at La Trobe City Campus Previous: 25 November 2012 This box: view talk edit

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup next Sunday (6 January). Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 26. Hope to see you there! John Vandenberg 05:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Victoria)

Howdy Jack. If you would (perhaps you already have) check up on the history of Skyring/Pete's obession with that topic, you might understand my suspicions about his motives :) GoodDay (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm well aware of some of his history and his areas of interest. Whether a keen interest in a topic amounts to an obsession is neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned; but if it is an obsession, then I'm also guilty of my fair share. But that aside, I really prefer to keep my focus on the issues and not on the personalities. I don't adjust my responses to the contributions of others depending on what (if anything) I believe or suspect to be their motives. That's not to say I'm so naive that I never read between the lines; but I prefer to keep those readings to myself and to play a straight bat on the content of what they actually type. In this case, I happen to be in 100% agreement with Pete's stance that there is a dispute over who is the Australian head of state. I'm also 100% in agreement with you that it's the monarch and not the governor-general. But there is no formal document that proves we're right, and that lack of certainty has led to many people taking the opposite position. Hence the dispute. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

What ho, Jack. If you have a moment I'd be glad if you'd run an eye over this new article. All contributions gratefully received. Tim Riley (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Just the job. Thank you, dear Jack! Tim Riley (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

What a well-written article, Tim. Thank God you've come back. I've made a small number of very minor tweakettes, nothing substantial.

To my shame, I have to admit his name meant close to nothing to me (and I spent some years living not far from Coolamon). There was only a very vague little bell tinkling way off in the distance.

That's what you get when your knowledge of singers is tied to recordings. I see no mention of any recordings he may have made, but I'd love to hear what he sounded like if you know of any.

Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The recordings I have on my shelves that Cameron sings in are Sargent's second go at Gerontius, Sargent's Elijah, Beecham's Solomon (outrageously Beechamised, but a delight), and Sargent's Trial by Jury and HMS Pinafore. I reckon the Handel and the Mendelssohn show him at his very best – superb singing, full of feeling for the words. Tim Riley (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep my eyes out. He's simply not a household name over here, at least not in my household. But you've done sterling service bringing him to our attention. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could add as a reference to this page the wonderful new book by Lawrence Webster, Italic textUnder the North Light: The Life and Work of Maud and Miska PetershamItalic text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.76.35 (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've never heard of Maud and Miska Petersham till now and I am not involved in that article. I do not know the reference you mention, and I won't be adding it sight unseen. Why not make your suggestion at Talk:Maud and Miska Petersham?

Who are you, and why did you approach me? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Claire Dan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bellevue Hill

John Derum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to David Hare

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I’ve enjoyed your comments on the Reference Desk pages, and thought I’d share this: I was in Paris recently, and heard Ms de Havilland deliver a lay reading on Christmas Eve at the American Cathedral. She appears about 80, and a good 80 at that ! DOR (HK) (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Why, thanks.

O de H must have my Mum's genes. To look at her and hear her speak, you'd probably guess mid-70s, tops. She is in fact 87. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent articles, including Stanisław Barcewicz, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It is required that one should review another nomination, yes. Just one is enough, but this is needed so that DYKs are not saddled with a giant backlog. It's really not difficult, check date, size, whether a hook is referenced, any red flags - most of the time it takes me <1 min. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No, actually it's now generally accepted that the X government shouldn't cap the g. Please consult MOS and many authoritative style guides outside. Tony (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Then Hawke Government and Howard Government need to be moved. Probably stacks of others.

And greetings to you too.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly they do; but in the meantime, running prose can minimise the interruptive effects of unnecessary capitalisation. Tony (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Great addition and very nicely done! --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Robert. I'm stunned that she's such an obscure name today. Maybe this will spark some more interest in her. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Pyramus and Thisbe (opera) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Garrick and Macklin

Alma Moodie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mount Morgan

Apollinaire de Kontski (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Arco

Australia 2020 Summit participants (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mark Scott

Blue Heelers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Yass

Geoffrey Payne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Hopkins

List of people from Melbourne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Elisabeth Murdoch

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

If you need more help with that PDF as far as translation or comments on it as a source for an article put a talk-back on my talk page to make sure you get my attention. μηδείς (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for the quick translation. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI_ I now see a timetable for proposed legislation was added to Perth Agreement at 15:05, 11 January 2013 UTC by an editor whose contributions have been mainly about USA Congress and ambassadors, with a sideline Order of precedence in England and Wales.[1] Cheers --Qexigator (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Gabrielle Krauss at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Intelligentsium 07:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I have elaborated more on my concerns regarding the sources. Cheers, Intelligentsium 21:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello JackofOz, with respect to this edit, I would like to ask you if it is necessary to link to an article twice within an article's body (and thrice within all of it)? Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, definitely. Particularly in long articles subdivided into sections. The only other mention of Chopin was in the lede, quite some distance away. If a reader wanted to click on the Chopin link, they'd have to

• remember seeing it from its sole earlier appearance - but that's assuming they're reading the article sequentially from start to finish, which is an assumption we have no right to make; or failing that,
• do a search using Control-F; or failing that,
• go the Search box and type in "Chopin".

All of these demand some work on the part of the reader, and this is utterly inimical to the idea of links in the first place. They're designed to make life easier for readers. I make similar remarks about Debussy, although he had more mentions than poor old Freddy.

I hate over-linking, but what I did could never in a million years be reasonably described as that, so I reject your header. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way, thank you for your good catch here. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. A very valuable article, by the way, well-written and researched. My contributions are marginal, if that, but my interest is high. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I removed the last link for Debussy before I saw this. Please revert me if you like. I won't mind, though I'm not sure what would happen at GAN. --Stfg (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Manuel Quiroga (violinist) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Christopher Palmer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Charles Gerhardt and Alfred Newman

Harold Holt (impresario) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John McCormack

Manuel Quiroga (violinist) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Galicia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent edit at Eric Pearce, I'm still doing more edits and adding info. However I have a question regarding Pearce's pre-Australian years and would like a second opinion on whether to include some details. According to Pearce's war service he was in the RAAF for about 11 months in 1942 (see nominal roll entry and A9300, PEARCE E H) with a service no. 254217 and next of kin as Jean Pearce. This information is currently in the article.

My question relates to the possibility of Pearce having an earlier wife: Ella Mary Pearce (married 11 April 1933 in Winnipeg, Canada) and a son: Royston Gyles Pearce (born ca. 1933, same). Ella Mary attempted to locate her husband, Pearce – known to be in Sydney in 1939 working at Australian Broadcasting Commission – and obtain an allowance from him. Details are in a National Archives of Australia file, "Personal. Eric H. Pearce - whereabouts of:" with a digital copy available. Sydney Chief of Police informs Ella Mary that Pearce is a Flight Officer in the RAAF with a service no. 4217. This and other details matches Pearce's service record and early years in Australia.

Is this information sufficiently notable to be put in Pearce's article? Or am I getting overly detailed here?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems there may be a third Mrs. Eric Pearce. See brief mention from 1965, photo caption from 1974. I haven't found other details on her yet.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I've decided to include the first marriage, but still looking for more before including the third one.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi JackofOz! Thanks for your response at Template:Did you know nominations/Harry Glicken. I responded to your suggestion with a new hook. I'd appreciate it if you could critique it. ceranthor 23:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I tweaked it a little bit more. Could you check it out? ceranthor 03:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone has asked for a tick at the nomination page. ceranthor 01:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, Jack: In the northern hemisphere, we talk about "up north" and "down south" locally, nationally and internationally. Is it the same in Australia? Bielle (talk) 05:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, pretty much.

But some people always talk of going "up to" the nearest larger town or state/national capital, no matter which direction they may travel to get there. And others always say they're going "down to" such a place. But if it's just a direction, then it's "up north" and "down south". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There is the quirky use of "Deep North" as explained at Australian regional rivalries#Queensland and southern states. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a case of going up deeply. If you get my drift. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey JackofOz,

I've spent the last week or so removing a large amount of uncited information on renditions of "Barbara Allen (song)" from the song's page. It is a very popular piece which has seen quite a number of different versions and arrangements, and not all of them constitute critical knowledge about the song. I am unfamiliar with Quilter's setting, and would greatly appreciate it if you rephrased the passage to (a) indicate why his setting is especially notable or significant and (b) include a citation for it. Information on different song arrangements tend to build up quickly when no reference are provided, and it quickly becomes unmanageable.

Thanks, Memtgs (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Memtgs. I've added the cites and assertion of notability as you requested.

I recommend you get hold of Quilter's Arnold Book of Old Songs. I've been playing it for close to 40 years. Wonderfully affecting piano arrangements, the "Barbara Allen" being the best of the lot imo. Percy Grainger liked it a lot. Enough said. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking good, JackofOz -- that is quite the improvement, and I am certainly convinced as to its notability! However, I still take issue in one respect: if someone were to come to the article seeking to learn more about Barbara Allen and the historical and musical development of the song, how would the inclusion of Quilter's piece aid them in this? It seems a bit of info more useful to understanding that English composer rather than the development of the ballad over time.

Perhaps this merely reflects my own bias (as I have been addressing the article from a folklorist/ethnomusicological perspective), but I still feel that the passage is somewhat disconnected from the rest of the article, and would prefer if it were better segued into. Your thoughts? Memtgs (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we can always do better. I'll just say that an encyclopedia is like Gustav Mahler's idea of the symphony, it should include the whole world. The folklorist/ethnomusicological perspective is absolutely fine. But there are other perspectives, equally valid.

I'll have a think. Maybe others can do so too. Let us see what develops. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. I do think it is important to include different renditions and developments of the ballad, but how to do so in a centralized manner which usefully reflects upon the topic -- this is a tough nut to crack. Memtgs (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Having just stumbled on this exchange I find myself agreeing with both of you. Grainger also made a highly dramatic arrangement of his own based on his 1905/06 field notes - more info available from here. Fwiw, I had similar concerns regarding the Twa Sisters page, which ends badly. I've tried to rebalance the final section a little (mainly through the Percy Grainger experience), though I really wouldn't know how to delistify it. Regards, 86.149.65.244 (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Herbert Heyner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Bass, Albert Coates and Norman Walker

Peter Lawler (public servant) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Bathurst and John Bunting

Valse-Scherzo (Tchaikovsky) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Midori and Clarens

Australian Family Association (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Elisabeth Murdoch

Frederick Ranalow (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lyric Theatre

Harold Holt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Bunting

Maurice Byers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Keith Mason

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

On 22 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Karl Beck (tenor), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Austrian tenor Karl Beck became a master baker after his singing career, which included creating the title role in Wagner's opera Lohengrin, was cut short by a deterioration in his voice? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Karl Beck (tenor). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

KTC (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you. (I'd considered making a red link on the Rootham page, but I see that wasn't necessary). 86.149.65.244 (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I must say I'd hardly ever heard of him until I was researching Lloyd Powell. Barton seems to be one of these probably hundreds of superb musicians who is all but forgotten today but who had a major impact on many people over many years and deserves to be remembered. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you know them? Here's a quote from our article on Bruce Haynes:

In 2011, shortly after Haynes' death, a compact disc was released by the Bande Montréal Baroque under the baton of Eric Milnes with six "New Brandenburg concertos Nos. 7-12" by Johann Sebastian Bach. Bruce Haynes had arranged Bach cantata movements into concertos in the same manner as Bach used to rework his own compositions. "These concertos are not meant as serious reconstructions", Haynes wrote, "merely as speculative trials to demonstrate the possibilities for instrumental treatment of Bach's rich fund of musical inventions contained in the cantatas and other vocal works".

I heard the one in D major on the radio the other day. Interesting.

Bielle (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, no, this is all completely new territory for me, Bielle, but thanks for the info.

<rant warning> I withhold final judgment until hearing and reading more, but I must say I am always terribly unimpressed by people who fiddle around with stuff by long dead composers in ways they never intended, and then publish them as works by that composer. Read about Alan Kogosowski's cobbling together of 3 completely unrelated works by Chopin and calling his creation "Chopin's Piano Concerto No. 3 in A major"; and what he did with Rachmaninoff. And there's Taneyev's reworking of sketches that Tchaikovsky had abandoned, into the Andante and Finale, which was not only published as a work by Tchaikovsky alone (the publisher lied in order to improve his sales figures), but even given a posthumous opus number in his catalogue of works (ditto). Crazy, completely crazy! No wonder it's been confusing the heck out of music students and writers for almost 120 years. The story takes a little telling but we seem to have got the guts of it.

Look, I'm not a spoilsport, and people can reorchestrate and rearrange existing works any way they like, as long as they're appropriately labelled. It's the pompous and misleading titles they give these treatments that I object to. How about I find some assorted scraps and sketches of Beethoven and then cut and paste them together and call it "Beethoven's 11th Symphony". I don't think so. <end rant>

That said, I'm sure the Haynes CD is good listening in its own terms, and I look forward to hearing it, but you'll forgive me if I prefer not to think of these pieces as "Brandenburg concertos Nos. 7-12 by Johann Sebastian Bach". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You are, of course, entitled to rant on any subject, especially on your own talk page. To be fair to Mr. Haynes, he does/did not claim that the new ones are by J.S. Bach, although the album cover might be felt to be somewhat misleading in this way. (And our article is incorrect in respect of the actual title.) It is called: Noveaux "Brandenbourgeois" Reconstruction par|by Bruce Haynes, notwithstanding what reviewers and/or sellers are doing to it. See here; zoom in on the cover.

I don't have either your musical knowledge or exposure, and so can enjoy it just for what pleasure there is for the ear. If this one is part of a confusing history, it will be because of the way in which the marketers and reviewers have treated it, and not because of what Mr Haynes has done, I think. Bielle (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you'll remember participating in a discussion that I raised on this subject at WP:RDH late last spring; it's at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 November 17. Turns out that my faulty memory was based on a statement in reserve power, which derives from here:

In 1953, prior to Queen Elizabeth II's first royal tour of Australia (also the first undertaken by the country's reigning monarch), it was planned for her to take part in various formal processes of her Australian government. However, the government's legal advisors discovered that the Constitution of Australia allowed only the governor-general to employ all of the powers vested in the Queen, with the exception of the power to appoint the governor-general him or herself. The Royal Powers Act 1953 was passed in order to address this, and enabled the Queen, when she was personally present in Australia, to exercise any power defined in an Act of the Australian parliament that is exercisable by her governor-general.

Was Section 58 of the Constitution not in force in 1953, or is there some other explanation that you might know about? Unless I'm still confused, there's some sort of contradiction here. Nyttend (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it certainly was in force in 1953. I'm no lawyer, but I would say the difference is this:

• Personally assenting to a bill is a power given to the Queen by S.58 of the Constitution, but only if the Governor-General thinks this is appropriate and reserves it for her pleasure. The Queen could not call him/her up and say "Oy, guv! I want to personally give Royal Assent to the bill currently before the Parliament giving Australian Wikipedians 2 votes at federal elections, and for Jack of Oz in particular to have 10 votes". S.2, which gives the governor-general alone the power to exercise the queen's powers and functions, has to be read in conjunction with S.58 (not to mention s.59, which gives her the power to disallow any bill within 12 months of the governor-general's assent; not that that has ever happened or is ever going to, but we're discussing technicalities here.)

• The Constitution is an act of the UK Parliament. Outside of a proposed constitutional amendment, which must in any case receive the people's blessing at a referendum, no act of the Australian Parliament can modify the Constitution. In particular, the Australian Parliament does not have the power to give to the Queen any of the powers given to the governor-general in the Constitution. That would be as null and void as the Parliament purporting to give Jack of Oz those powers. There are cases such as S.9, which says the Parliament may make laws for prescribing the method of choosing senators; and of course S.51, which goes into chapter and verse about the matters about which the Parliament may make laws generally. But whatever acts the Parliament does under these heads of power, in no way modify the Constitution.

• The Royal Powers Act 1953 had nothing to do with that. It gave the Queen the power to do anything the governor-general is empowered to do by an Act of the Australian Parliament, when she is personally present in Australia.
• For example, the governor-general is empowered to appoint judges of the Federal Court of Australia, by S.6 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. But when the Queen is present in Australia, she could, by virtue of the Royal Powers Act 1953, personally make such an appointment if it were considered desirable. Without the Royal Powers Act, she could not have done so. Or, a specific amendment to the Federal Court of Australia Act. But the Royal Powers Act covers any and all powers given to the governor-general by many hundreds of different acts of the Australian Parliament, some of which don't even exist at this point in time, so it's a complete and elegant solution.

So, with the above in mind, my reading of the paragraph you quoted above is that it's faulty, and based on someone's misunderstanding of the differences I've just explained in my long-winded way. The Royal Powers Act gave the Queen precisely zero of the governor-general's powers set out in the Constitution, but precisely all of the governor-general's powers set out in a vast multitude of acts of the Australian Parliament.

But, as I say, I'm no lawyer, and I may be completely wrong here. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I know you haven't had a chance to respond yet, but I've raised this for discussion @ Talk:Reserve power#Australia: Royal Powers Act 1953. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Your detailed explanation is very helpful. Part of the issue is that I keep forgetting that your constitution is written (I tend to think of Australia's federal government as resembling that of Canada, except with elected senators who have practical power), so I was thinking that a simple Act of Parliament could "change" a constitutional problem like this appeared to be. This is assuming that a lack of such a provision for the Queen of Canada could be resolved by a simple Act of Parliament if their laws didn't already permit her to sign bills etc. Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been doing some digging, and my view seems to be supported at least by Sir David Smith, who here says:

• The fact is that The Queen cannot exercise any of the Governor-General's constitutional powers. Under the Royal Powers Act 1953 The Queen is authorised, whenever she is present in Australia, to exercise the powers conferred on the Governor-General by Commonwealth Acts of Parliament, but they do not include the powers conferred on the Governor-General by the Constitution.

He also talks about the matter here and here, but without being quite so clear cut as in the first link - although, they do give interesting additional detail about when the Royal Powers Act has been invoked. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

	Australian Wikimedian Recognition (AWR)
	Thank you for your contributions on English Wikipedia that have helped improve Australian related content. :D It is very much appreciated. :D Enjoy your Australia Day and please continue your good work! Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, and same to you.

Btw, is this the only gong I'll be getting today? I scoured the paper for my name among the AC recipients, but they must have mucked up the copy from Government House, or something.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

List of Fellows of the Royal College of Music (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Gwyneth Jones and David Lumsden

Ania Dorfmann (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John McCormack

Constant Lambert (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to George Dyson

Herbert Fryer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Christiania

John Ireland (composer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Frederic Lamond

Songs of Sunset (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chorus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I am desperately looking for the précise date (day + month but month must be April 33) when Bruno Walter left Germany for Austria. If you can help, many thanks. User talk:MenerbesMenerbes (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Jack. There was no page for Concerto for Two Pianos and Orchestra, so a redirect to the Bruch version of the piece is inappropriate because as you mentioned there are five others. I've instead created a disambiguation page. Cheers. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, what an expert reframing of the truth. I crown you Spinmaster of Wikipedia.

You very inappropriately moved Concerto for Two Pianos and Orchestra (Bruch) to just Concerto for Two Pianos and Orchestra on the basis that a disambiguator was unnecessary. How wrong this was, was very easily demonstrated as we have:

• Concerto for Two Pianos and Orchestra in A-flat major (Mendelssohn)
• Concerto for Two Pianos and Orchestra in E major (Mendelssohn)
• Concerto for Two Pianos and Orchestra (Mozart) (which redirects to Piano Concerto No. 10 (Mozart))
• Concerto for Two Pianos and Orchestra (Poulenc)
• Concerto for Two Pianos (Stravinsky), and
• Concerto for Two Pianos and Orchestra (Vaughan Williams).

All of these are better known than the Bruch Concerto. I quickly reversed your move. A redirect got created in the process. This is your doing, not mine.

Thank you for creating the disambiguation page. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)