Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Hey Jacko, I see in Gregorian calendar you spent a lot of time changing dates, eg, December 1 to 1 December. The reason dates are wikied is that they will appear on YOUR computer in the format you prefer, and which you have selected in prefs. So no need to change dates (but important to wikify them). Cheers Moriori July 5, 2005 02:59 (UTC)

In your edit of Albury, New South Wales you qualified the length of the railway platform assertion to "for many decades". Was it ever the longest, which is now? To my mind such factoids beloing in the category of describing Albury as the "Venice of the Murray River", but as it is an often cited fact perhaps worth devoting a little bit of time to getting it right. I will put some references to the factoid for consideration on the discussion page. Regards--AYArktos 00:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi - its cool but sunny in Canberra today and while there was a little bit of snow in our garden it was not enough for a real thrill. The first thing I learnt about Albury from my husband, who grew up there, was the "fact" that Albury had the longest platform in the southern hemisphere. Like me he somewhat despises such statistics but he was still a little disconcerted to learn that the fact had to be qualified as it was an important part of Albury lore. Regards--AYArktos 23:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I think for some reason Wikipedia editors are overzealous with their title-bestowing. There probably is a place for putting them at the beginning of an article - post-nominals definitely, but the Hon. only while they're still alive. (I don't have objections to "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth . . .", for example, but I would for "Her Majesty Queen Victoria. . ." As for abbreviating, well, something to consider is whether or not the title is likely to be familiar to the average reader (I don't know if "the Hon." would be or not, I just remember thinking that Msgr. is a bit obscure), and for capitalisation, well it should only ever appear once in the article anyway, so it might well be at the beginning. Slac speak up! 07:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Glad to have helped with your vocabularic expansion, even if by way of error. As a function of typing approximately 37 bazillion words a day, as well as of my idiocy, I do make lots of mistakes. In fact, "I was a living mistake" will make a fine epitaph for me someday. Have fun! Xoloz 05:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi. There's a discussion over at talk:Louise Fletcher about whether we should believe IMDb's assertion that she has died. It's very curious that there seems to be no report anywhere else (and she's a pretty famous actress, so you'd think there would be plenty of reports of it). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:43, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I was not trying to be unpleasant, but it is a fact that all dates at Wikipedia are wikified, which most competent editors notice fairly quickly. If you make edits that create unnecessary work for other people, you will get comments. Adam 00:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I am having a very nice day, thank you. I will try to be better behaved. Adam 02:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi I just noticed you edited the Burke & Wills page so I thought you might have an interest in this (maybe) - Do you know if they returned a 3rd time to Coopers Creek? I put a question about it on the Talk:Burke and Wills expedition page Cfitzart 06:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice comment about my photos :) I don't know why my computer doesnt like viewing the galleries on wiki oh well, have you thought about joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Canberra and add your name to the participants? Cfitzart 09:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the information on the spurious Niels Bohr quote. It is always good to know if quotes used are correct, hopelessly out of context or even real. Its one of those unfortunate times when a pithy quote loses its zest when all the facts are known. Thanks. MeltBanana 18:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Maybe a solution is to retain the quote but de-attribute it. That way, you still have a pithy phrase to enjoy, but you're not misleading anybody as to its source. Cheers JackofOz 23:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason for my spelling error was ... "all of the above".

I'd be happy to meet other Wikipedians, any of the days listed at Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne should suit me. How to we organise same? Avalon 07:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I have always assumed that the D-notice banning mention of the whereabouts of the Petrovs was legally binding. Your edit suggests it wasn't. Do you have a reference on this? Adam 03:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you are probably right. The article should probably say that the press was "formally requested" not to mention the Patrovs' whereabouts, or something like that. I also have fond memories of Nation Review, not least because it was first publication in Australia to run same-sex personal contact ads. It deserves an article if it doesn't already have one. So does Michael Thwaites, who I see in this morning's Pinko Rag died this week. Adam 04:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I really don't care. I didn't write that bullet. I was merely supporting the original intent. Most people, when they think of Bond, they think of this ultimate English secret agent. The intent is to point out that of all, Moore was the only English-born actor. (Although, in truth, in literature anyway, Bond is Scottish - as an homage to Connery). The entire bullet could probably be removed or rewritten with the "is the only..." taken out with the actors nationality listed instead. K1Bond007 06:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Bond's heritage wasn't fleshed out by Ian Fleming till On Her Majesty's Secret Service (written in 1963 - the book also mentions Ursula Andress, the first Bond girl in the first Bond film, Dr. No. The heritage deal is documented as an homage to Connery). I disagree about the British vs English thing and I'd also like to point out that Brosnan is not British. K1Bond007 07:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, JackofOZ. I just changed the image at the Opus Dei article. Hope you like it. Thomas S. Major 07:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I think I changed Fowles' designation from British to English as an afterthought, having in the next sentence indicated that Essex is in England. (I didn't realise it was a reversion.) I really don't mind which it is, so have reinstated British once again. Hope that is okay. Apologies for the typo I overlooked.
Best wishes, David Kernow 13:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution on Talk:Die Lustige Witwe. If you feel it appropriate, please will you re-add the cleanup tag to the article? Thank you. Andy Mabbett 12:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no requirement for you to follow this suggestion. Figaro 12:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Hence If you feel it appropriate...! Andy Mabbett 15:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I am shocked that you think that I was putting you down. That was not my intention, and I find it interesting that you took it in the way that you did. The insult was in your imagination only. No such thing was intended by me. Figaro 13:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Cheers Figaro 13:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Users Ted Wilkes and Wyss are working together to suppress my contributions to articles on celebrities which are not in line with their personal opinion, but are well supported by many independent sources. See, for instance, [1] and [2]. Significantly, in his edit summary, Wyss claims, "rv edits by user who has been banned from editing celebrity articles". The same user also says on my talk page: "It seems to me that 141 has violated his probation and should be blocked." See [3] and the reply by arbitrator Fred Bauder: User_talk:Onefortyone#Onefortyone_placed_on_Probation. Ted Wilkes and Wyss even ignore your argument on the Talk:Nick Adams page. See Talk:Nick_Adams#Further_sources_supporting_the_view_that_Adams_had_homosexual_leanings. I think this behavior is unacceptable. Perhaps you may have a further look at the related pages. Thank you. User:Onefortyone 14:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Glancing through Eequor's list, there are a few pairs I have liked:

• cheer & jolly
• arab & dude
• ape & pet (or aped & pets)
• ant & nag
• bet & fix
• task & bias
• hot & ova
• bomb & hush
• err & boo
• ewe & wow
• ask & mew
• woo & ass
• babe & pops
• bed & rut
• bra & sir
• bury & slip
• chain & ingot
• clap & rape
• cold & frog
• cubed & melon
• crop & furs
• cushy & wombs
• cut & won
• dated & spits
• dazed & spots
• defy & stun
• end & foe
• rail & envy (well, at least works between Sydney & Melbourne)
• etch & pens
• fake & toys
• fills & lorry
• rat, irk & vex (or at least irk & vex)
• fusion & layout
• fuse & tins
• gift & surf
• wet & sap
• wet & owl
• goo & wee
• goon & weed
• green & terra
• hen & spy
• stop & hide
• hips & tube
• ice & keg
• limy & rose
• link & spur
• manful thumbs
• odd & zoo
• odd & pee
• zoo & pee
• pawn & tear
• show & pelt
• quay & wage (for Melbourne's warfie strikes)
• roar & urdu
• three [times 16 - 1 =] xlvii

Of course the system used here only works on an English dictionary, but given a publicly available set of translations, you could easily modify the program to try find translation loopwords. You could also use WordNet to automate the finding of related words, though they would be few.

I've quite enjoyed this, so thanks for bringing them up! jnothman ^talk 06:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I was too busy thinking about meanings to notice the reversibility of gnat and tang! jnothman ^talk 06:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem I have deleted your past corrections. Can you apply them again? Can I ask you to correct also Schweinfurt and Magdeburg too (I'm not English-speaking, so my written English is bad). Thanks and good work! Attilios

Much of the notability discussion on AfD is ad hoc, because some dedicated inclusionist WPians feel that lack of notability is not a real reason for deletion -- at the extreme, some believe every person ever deserves an article. The guideline on notable people is WP:BIO, but AfD often errs in favor of including borderline cases. AfD is controversial, in its own way, but it is also a hotbed for the generation of policy, so I frequent often. I wouldn't get too caught up in trying to develop a definitive answer on notability, though, if I were you; when one deals with the full range of human knowledge, lots of little weird cases pop up. Xoloz 06:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Good point, please add George Michael back. I'm sure that one of the links at George Michael can serve as a source. I don't know Karol Szymanowski though, and the link you gave for him was red (Historic pederastic couples doesn't exist). Radiant_>|< 01:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a plain-text smilie. My shorthand mostly for "all in good fun" when I've written something otherwise too edgy. - Nunh-huh 04:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder that the meaning isn't necessarily obvious to everyone. I'll be more judicious in using it<g>. - Nunh-huh 01:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised you changed Hitch to "British/American", bearing in mind your contribution on the Manual of Style talk page. JW 22:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I meant "British-American" instead of British. The article originally said British, then it was changed to "British-American". I rephrased it to "British...later became an American citizen" as this seemed less ambiguous. This question was raised on the Manual of Style talk page, and I thought you were arguing that we shouldn't get too hung up on the idea of citizenship. I didn't see anything wrong in saying he was "British...later became an American citizen" instead of "British, later British-American", which seems a bit clumsy. 81.131.146.63 19:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Are you (81.131.146.63) and JW the same user?
• I still don't really know what you're talking about in reference to the Manual of Style talk page. I am not aware that I've ever contributed to that page. Please show me what I said, because I can't find it.
• It's not untrue to say that Hitchcock later became an American citizen, but it's not the whole truth, and that's the problem. He retained dual British and American citizenship, which is precisely why he was entitled to be known as Sir Alfred Hitchcock when he was knighted. Showing him only as an American citizen after 1956 would inevitably raise the question as to whether he should be "Sir" Alfred or just Mr Hitchcock. The question has been conclusively settled, so why invite unnecessary speculation by omitting this very pertinent information? As for clumsiness, you may have a point. But trying to concisely state the nationality history of people who have become dual nationals, without misleading the reader, is a challenge. JackofOz 22:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. If he had used edit summaries it would have been clearer, or if I had done more research before reverting the initial removal. I saw the removal of a prominent figure by an anon, reverted it, checked his contributions and saw only then he had placed it back at 14 Nov. Thats when I went to his talk page to ask for sources ([4]). He didn't check his messages before reverting back to his version. Thats when I made the request on Talk:Deaths in 2005. --Syrthiss 22:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I've only just noticed your comment on my archived talk page re: rhinotillexomania. Thanks for that; I had actually gone searching for the word, but couldn't find it. Snottygobble | Talk 22:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No no, not upset, because I knew it was wrong, and that I did nothing wrong :-) I went ahead and fixed J7's page myself. I have it on my watchlist, in case he changes it back. Search4Lancer 22:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Ditto to what you said - 99.99% of the time it is not right to edit another's user page, but this counted for part of the .01% that it ought to be alright.Search4Lancer 22:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Am just curious, as someone who knew Stephen Hough as a lad, if you know the background to why he has taken Australian citizenship. TIA. mervyn 11:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, and left a big thank you to that admin on their talk page for it. I can't wait til he comes back, we'll probably have to strike him down again. Don't know if you noticed but I managed to get all the messages back onto his talk page. Search4Lancer 11:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Just thought I'd ask whether you ever found out the name of the Asian politician that you asked the question about at the Reference Desk? I've been looking for the answer myself so if you know, please set my mind at ease. Cheers. Roisterer 02:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jack--you're welcome. This is one of the most difficult situations we face as Wikipedians, specifically the problem of people who 1) are good and knowledgeable editors, and are literally helping to build a good encyclopedia, but 2) absolutely refuse to work with others, indeed are actively contemptuous towards efforts to communicate or collaborate. If problem behaviour persists we could always open an RfC, but my opinion, after having watched that little Drama Central for a year and half, is it probably wouldn't help, and would just increase everyone's stress.

Regarding Tchaikovsky, I read somewhere that his father was a Ukrainian mining engineer (it's not in the latest Grove article, and I'm at work so I can't look in my other sources now) -- however Tchaikovsky was born in Russia and his early musical influences were more Russian than anything else. I can add a bit to the talk page once I have my books in front of me again. Don't let the troublesome people get to you, and keep editing! I appreciate your work here. Best, Antandrus (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jack. I'm responding here in response to your talk about Tchaikovsky not being of Ukrainian heritage. His father was a Ukrainian mining engineer which I can show you here [5]. Note that there are other sources, I just chose the one I could find the fastest. Also it says here [6] that Tchaikovsky had Ukrainian heritage. His mother was of French origin but only partly. [7] Indeed, Russia was part of Ukraine but since Ukrainians are considered a separate nationality here (though there might be little difference in language and culture) it's probably appropriate to add the fact that he was Ukrainian too. Also, since we're in the debate of who's who in nationality terms. I'd like for you to take a look at the Nicholas Copernicus article, and like to hear your view on the nationality debate that is going on there. Also, I need help populating List of Ukrainians, so if you can help, please join me. Thanks. Antidote

Thanks, Antidote. I'm moving this to Tchaikovsky's talk page because it's debate you and I should not be confining to ourselves. Please meet me over there. JackofOz 09:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh my word, Josefa Heifetz Byrne...Jascha Heifetz's daughter! Of course, but that's really neat! <blush>...I didn't know he had a daughter! That's really cool!

BTW, since you play piano, maybe you can help me. Bach's Goldberg Variations...have you played them? I'm working on them, and I'm having trouble with the ornamentation. (I'm doing the three-voice version.) Thanks for any help you can give me, 'cause I'm more a violinist who's trying to keep up with piano as I go! (And Merry Christmas, too, BTW!)--ViolinGirl^♪ 21:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your help anyway. I was listening to Glenn Gould's recording, and his ornamentation was completely different than mine...So, since my violin teacher told me she admired him, I decided to try to mimic his ornamentation, but since I have yet to get the CD, I only have a hint of how to do it. (You can hear how he inteprets them here, if you don't have the CD already.) The variations are really hard, don't you think? Well, thanks for your help anyway. Have a nice day!--ViolinGirl^♪ 12:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Metta Bubble 06:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Technically, none of the English spellings of the Pharaoh are "correct" because them guys wrote in Hieroglyphics. I wonder what the correct Hieroglyphic characters for "Ramses" (or whatever) actually are? Wahkeenah 21:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, I followed the link to Ramesses II... and I'm not quite sure how they get "Ramesses" out of "Ramessu-meryamen", but this was an educational trip, as I always assumed it was pronounced "RAM-sees" like in the movie, but it's more like "ra-mes-ses", and means something like "son of the sun". I'm sure his enemies had other names for him. >:) Wahkeenah 21:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I can dig it. Consistency is good. :) Hieroglyphics are really hard to understand. No wonder the Egyptian dynasty collapsed. They probably couldn't read their own blueprints, and everything eventually fell apart. Wahkeenah 21:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Except for the pyramids which, as Will Cuppy said, "couldn't fall down even if they tried." Wahkeenah 21:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

(a) Please don't patronise me. (b) Only if a reader both (i) is a user and (ii) has set date preferences. Proteus (Talk) 23:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I want to be kind to non-specialist music lovers by retaining the brief glossing of 'contrapuntal writing'. Most of them won't follow the link, and doing so will interrupt the flow of the information. It takes one short phrase to explain. Tony 02:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Was it particularly important to 'restore order' for a comment about 'revered statesman' that doesn't even appear in the article anymore? It would probably just make more sense to delete the 'revered statesman' thing altogether. Were you particularly bored at the time?--Jeffro77 15:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

(In reply to what was posted on my talk page,) I still think that it is redundant having the irrelevant information left on the talk page, particularly in view of the fact that no-one ever commented on it, and my rewrite of the article makes it meaningless. There isn't a great deal of value in recording the fact that you began a particular talk page unless there is actually some substance to what has been inputted. I could easily go trawling for articles that don't yet have talk pages and put trivial comments just to claim the talk pages as some kind of trophy, but it would be of no benefit to anyone. But I like that you stick to your principles.--Jeffro77 01:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You asked why it was necessary to rewrite the article. If you refer to my comment on the Talk page, you will see that the reason for rewriting the article was that someone had done a cut-and-paste from a website, the content of which is copyright, and cannot be used on Wikipedia. "Revered statesman ??" under the heading "Revered statesman??" is hardly something of value to be kept for posterity, and is not the same as retaining record of valuable debate. I doubt that the person who did the cut-and-paste from the Australian Idol website did so simply because they read your comment on the talk page, if they even saw it at all.--Jeffro77 04:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry that you interpreted my appeal to logic as some kind of personal attack on your pride. Whether I 'doubt' the motivations of the cut-and-paster is irrelevant, and I do not claim clairvoyance. However, it is highly improbable that the individual saw your comment and, rather than simply editing the silly expression from the article, decided to go to the Australian Idol website and copy the entire article from there. Further, since the user pasted in an entire article that is subject to copyright, it is unlikely that they are fully aware of the principles of Wikipedia, and therefore probably didn't bother with the Talk page either. I did not say they didn't read your comment, only that even if they had, it was not likely their reason for changing the entire article. The "Revered Statesman" comment did have some relevance at the time of writing, and I'm sorry if I upset you by suggesting otherwise. That said, I stand by my comment that it is no longer needed, and doesn't necessitate prominance on the page, as on its own, with no context, it looks unnecessary and confusing. You accused me of a personal attack, though I did not make any comments personally relevant to you, only concerning what you had written. In response, you have made specific personal insuations which were completely unnecessary. Apology accepted in advance. Peace.--Jeffro77 07:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

A quick read of your Talk page suggests that you take offence too quickly (based on comments by users Adam_Carr, Apjake and Figaro). Don't take things so personally or the anxiety will end up killing you.--Jeffro77 07:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, this fiasco has gone much further than ever intended. In regard to the comments you considered offensive, I am sorry they may have upset you, but they did seem appropriate at the time, and I stand by them in the context they were intended.

• "Were you particularly bored at the time?" was intended in jest.
• Regardless of who wrote it, the question "Revered statesman??" on its own simply doesn't qualify as 'meaningful', 'substantial', 'something of value', or 'valuable debate'. Because the query no longer had any context, it had become a 'trivial comment'.

The "later editor" who explained the replacement of the copyrighted work was me. According to the Talk page guidelines (which is not "policy"), newer information should generally be appended to the bottom of posts, however in principle, it seemed more appropriate that current information regarding a copyright violation was more significant than information which no longer related to the article, and which was the only other post on the Talk page.--Jeffro77 10:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you as well. Curious to me implies that we need to look deeper—that there might be more here than meets than eye, perhaps a reason that we should look for as to why they were born on the same day, rather than just a coincedence (though a big coincedence, certainly one worth noting).

As you say, the inclusion or exclusion of the word isn't a terribly big deal (certainly not one I'd start an edit war over), but I felt that the writing was crisper without it. One of my big rules in copyeditting (both in Wikipedia and when writing professionally) is to avoid adverbs telling the reader how to interpret a sentence—the reader notes the coincidence just as much from "He and his wife were born on the exact same date" as he or she would from "He and his wife were born, curiously, on the exact same date," but does it for him or herself. (This is also a good rule for maintaing NPOV, though that's not really an issue here.) Binabik80 15:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Taken your criticism on board. May look into more of my thoughts than reactions to others. May not. Dankru 10:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

No problemo Dankru 11:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi mate, wondering if you'd be interested in joining WikiProject AFL. It's up and running, we now have a purpose.

If you're not interested in the footballers articles, check out the commentators section, where plenty of personalities like Ron Casey, Peter Landy etc etc have nothing on them. Ask me any questions you may have. Rogerthat 08:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it is now policy not to wikify individial years. I don't know who decides these things. Adam 16:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

HI bud, you did a good job on fixing the Paul Bern bio, but the vandals on this site, the one who wrote pov and reverted what we fixed and took away important things is not appreciated, watch this page!

Hi, you seem to be interested in Heinrich Harrer (he recently died, sadly), especially in the fact if the won an olympic medal. Actually, he didn't even participate. See my change on his page and in the discussion of that artice. Greets --Wirthi 20:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry about that I didn't even see your edit, I was just reverting Cds6886. Thanks Arniep 20:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted because he changed something without explaining why. I usually post rv unexplained change or something similar. Arniep 20:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to apologise for being so rude to you — I wasn't going through a particularly great period a couple of weeks ago, and I was rude to pretty much everyone. I hope you don't take it personally, and please accept my assurances that I'll try to be the model of politeness in the future. Proteus (Talk) 19:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You've a colorful User page :) I appriciate your comment on my talk page. Carlton recently begin editing on Scientology related pages. His first three edits were on discussion pages. He baits. Its not that he states a position, it is not that he introduces an information and cites a source. He baits. Its the first thing I noticed. I think generally what he uses language for is to build a sort fort around himself with words. Then grasps other people's words and throw them at other people's forts. "you said this, I hope it is a button word for you and I'm throwing it at you to see" .. that sort of thing. heh ! Have fun. Terryeo 20:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Getting in bed with Scientologists -- always a good idea, right? Enjoy the company you want to keep. --Calton | Talk 23:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the eagerness with which you do so pretty much tells me all I need to about the level of intellectual honesty to be expected from you. Don't you have ANY standards, or is "winning" the only one? --Calton | Talk 00:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I've stated principles and pointed out your logical and rhetorical fallacies: you willingness to ignore them in favor of scoring points is your problem, not mine -- up the point where you try to enlist others in your passive-aggressive battles. The fact that you suddenly pop up on this guy's page to offer support is suspicious -- develop a sudden interest in Dianetics, have you? I seriously doubt that.

Like I say at the top of my talk page, it's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical: that you feel comfortable climbing into bed with those exhibiting two out of three is worth pointing out, and if you were genuinely not going to engage with me, then you wouldn't have bothered posting to his talk page or on mine -- unless you just have some pathological need to score points and get in the last word. Certainly it's hypocritical to gas on about my "personal abuse" and immediately follow up with your personal comment about myself and Japan. I might wonder, for example, how an Irish Australian knows bugger all about Italians and Sicilians in the United States other than stuff he may have picked up from his Little Golden Books -- but that would be wrong, wouldn't it?

But let's see if principle is actually at work: if it isn't really about personal pique, you'll:

a) be contributing to the Dianetics book page

b) not be suddenly popping up in areas where I just so happen to have an interest. Here's my watchlist: see if anything here overlaps, and speak up now, so your sudden appearance won't be a surprise: User:Calton/Article Watchlist. Otherwise, it might look like you're, you know, stalking me.

c) not try to get in the last word on my talk page. Answer b) above, then go away.

Let's see how strong your allegiance to principle actually is. --Calton | Talk 01:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

More on Moszkowski: http://dreme.co.uk/2006/01/spineless.html - thanks for the comment, JofO! I look forward to getting hold of the Polonaise when I can. Philip Howard 20:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on why Reg Withers doesn't have a PC post nominal. In researching the original article I referred to a "Who's Who" which included the PC for Withers. One always likes to think that WW, of all Australian publications, would know their post nominals but there you are. --Roisterer 12:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I just read through the Astrology thread on the help desk and I wanted to commend you for sticking to your guns and keeping everyone on task.

I've found it very common for some others (especially some younger ones) to read what they're guessing you're gonna say instead of what you're actually saying. It's easy to get up and walk out, but then nobody learns, and some very well intentioned and intelligent contributors could save others some nasty headaches by learning to better follow an argument.

So, I just wanted to thank you for providing a little clinic in this. -LambaJan 08:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey! I read your thoughts on Moszkowski's Polonaise and since I'm not familiar with this piece, I wondered if you could point me to sheet notes - you got me interested :) -Missmarple 01:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I saw it a long time ago, so my memory is very hazy (in case you were planning to ask me a question about it).

But can you tell me who you are and why you're asking me questions about the Sydney Opera House and this movie? JackofOz 12:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

i was not planing to ask you a question about it. and why do you want to know who am i that's a bit personal. anyway i was asking you abou the sidney opera house because i heard it is ver big and beautiful and i wish to visit is this summer also i just wanted to know that if you had seen the movie because i had just seen it.

No offence was intended. It's not usual for people to direct their questions at individual Wikipedians. It's best to post your questions to the Wikipedia:Reference desk, where the services of thousands of us are available to you. I should have told you that earlier, so sorry for the confusion. Best of luck. JackofOz 23:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

thanks. now i wanted to ask your help again for a simple matter. this is a essay i wrote for my english class i was wonderning wehter you could check it.

                      The New Orleans Rebuilding Committee

Tragedy happens all around the world but only some times do people recover from it. The tragedy I am talking about is the hurricane Katrina destroying New Orleans. This tragedy bought the whole nation close together. The money, food and the rest of necessities were donated countrywide everybody in the USA made sacrifices. Schools all around the country started donation programs which donated more than a million dollars to help the homeless. Companies started donating things from canned goods to blankets. They whole nation helped. Hope was given to the survivors by millions of people all around the world. Everywhere around the world people sympathized with the survivors. My principal requested after the day of this horrible tragedy that “we should pay homage to those who died in this dreadful incident.” My friends describe this event as a “event that saddened them deeply”and they and their relatives will give donations to those who need it. Few months after the tragedy the New Orleans’ mayor organized a committee that was comprised of the residents of New Orleans. These residents want their neighborhood back and they are going to take a active part in the rebuilding which is admirable. Each of them share their dream with each other and then when all of them have come to a decision they will tell this decision on the how to? to the builders. I am impressed with the concern of the mayor who does not want the high companies to be involved. For the most part I think that the people of New Orleans will include something traditional to remind them of their past neighborhood. The government granted them around 29 billion dollars to start their reconstruction the plans that they make will be approved by the congress. I feel happy that everybody is taking part in bringing back the lost city of jazz. I feel that me and my friends will visit this lost city of jazz whenever it is rebuilt. With plans and dreams for their future neighborhood these people are ready to face any obstacles that come in the way. this committee will do its beautiful work…………………..by anonymous thanks

Hi, anonymous. A part of me has no problem with checking your work, but a stronger part of me says this is not what Wikipedia is for. While it is an innocent and innocuous request in itself, it also undermines the purpose of Wikipedia. I don't want to be a party to that, so I must decline. I don't think you will have much success here with this type of request. The Wikipedia:Reference desk is available for legitimate reference enquiries, but even it cannot be used to help people with their homework. Maybe somebody you know who has a good knowledge of English could help you out with your homework. (By the way, at a quick glance, it seems well written). Best of luck. JackofOz 02:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've replied to your response to my Inaccuracies and Infelicities post on the Talk:Orson Welles page. --Chips Critic 00:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I was just having some fun. I don't appreciate being called a wanker, and I see that your calling me that totally goes against the little banner that says you're a member of the Kindness Campaign! Kindness Campaign my butt! My friend's an admin, too, and he was watching and laughing the whole time I was doing those changes. They weren't meant for harm, just for a laugh. I mean, what did I do to you to deserve such a demeaning term being placed on me?152.13.124.133 06:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone reading this, the above person vandalised Henry VIII of England, and I reverted him/her. In the edit summary I said "rv. some wanker".

Hi dude. I guess fun means different things to different people. I don't quite get how you can be so indignant to me using this one little word, when you added far more than that to an article that hundreds of different people have spent a lot of time and energy over for a long time. We all like to have our fun, but Wikipedia is at its heart a serious business, and we really treasure what we collectively can produce. Fair enough, irritating distractions like yours only take a few seconds to undo, but that doesn't make it OK. They don't add any value. They just add frustration. And like it or not, they are vandalism. I encourage you to apply your creativity to more useful and positive pursuits. Such as shedding the cloak of anonymity, having the courage to give yourself a name, and editing any of the thousands of articles that can do with attention. You obviously know how to go about it. So what are you waiting for, just do it. JackofOz 09:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This person has subsequently vandalised my user page.

Hey...just came across your page...I had to comment! I totally agree with you...I mean lotta people dont understand the seriousness wikipedians put in to wikipedia....Maybe these people should know about Uncyclopedia, which is basically a spoof of wikipedia and meant for fun! Its really a sad thing that they say they were 'just having some fun'...-- Rohit 06:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem! My pleasure...Keep the work going! -- Rohit 06:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)