Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Sorry, I meant sinoxenic and Sinoxenic. Does that change your response?Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I worked that out quite some time ago, thanks to someone providing an explanation of what had gone on before I turned up. What was even more startling, however, was your persisent posting of "Sorry, I meant sinoxenic and Sinoxenic. Does that change your response". I saw it, but didn't realise it was intended for my ears. Where people have names, it's best to address them by name. In your case though, I'll make an exception and just call you "A". Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the title of "The Anacreontic Song". The idea that the title is "To Anacreon in Heaven" is so well-rooted that I would advise you to check back every now and then to see what the current "title" is. Writtenright (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Writtenright

Hi. I can't be positive, but looking back through the Rooney page history and similar anonymous IPs on that page to the present complainant, I suspect strongly that this person is User:Patkirkwoood who was unhappy that the other editors on the page weren't supportive of his changes, and did attempt to discuss this with him, although he didn't choose to participate. In any case, the note left stands as its own testimony to knowledge about Wiki procedures. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to reply to your comments at the desk, but then figured that would break untold ref desk commandments about running jokes and forums and transparency and keeping on topic... I have been chuckling for a few minutes now over your post, and wish to assure you that I am not cast down by your rejection of my fine title, and am now amusing myself by speculating on the Great Secret. Three Nuns in a Boat? The Habit? The Thrilling Three and the Case of the Florentine Statue? The Nunsuch? David's Master Piece? You could -if I might be so bold- name it after your biggest fan: Gwinva's Delight. But perhaps you will go for something more obscure, like Squirrels in Autumn, or even deep, like Immiscible. Ah, what joy.

I must say, while I'm here, how much I have enjoyed reading your posts since I settled in at the ref desk some weeks ago; what with you and Noetica I am frequently in hysterics (I love his rotating ball above, by the way). Must be an antipodean thing. Oh, and thanks for being brave enough to air your work on ref desk for us all to comment on and joke about: I'm not sure I'd be as brave! Gwinva (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Why, thank you, Gwinva! What a lovely testimonial. I enjoy your posts too. Being somewhat risk-averse, I'm not usually so beave, but the written word unleashes my inner beaver. "Squirrels in Autumn" - how evocative, but also how curiously and extraordinarily apt! May I borrow it, please? If I use it, I will of course use it as the title of a piece that contains no references whatsoever to either squirrels or autumn, but I'll be sure to include a few beavers, which will leave the readers guessing which planet I'm from. But as long as they were intrigued enough to buy and read my book, after which they will obviously long for more, thus providing me with the superannuation I so richly deserve, let them guess. For your eyes only, I'm thinking of calling one of the sisters "Nun the Less".  :)  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, those dam beavers: always trying to escape and claim the credit for one's life's work. Squirrels can be just as troublesome (at any time of year). I keep my beavers, squirrels and other rodents firmly leashed, as much as possible (although I have been known to let things slip from time to time). They cannot bear to be unreferenced, particularly in works which bear their names, so you have planned a suitable revenge. Your master stroke, of course, is to include beavers in the text: the squirrels will be suitably angered to be so upstaged that the rodents will fight amongst themselves for quite some time and you will be left in peace.

Nun the Less sounds quite delightful; I presume she is accompanied by Nun the Worse? As to the third, what better appellation could be imagined than "Tim Cahill"?

And now for something completely different...Field of Dreams? Kevin Costner and baseball rating rather low on my list of favourite things, I have, indeed, never seen it. But following your recommendation I shall watch it if it ever comes my way (because, of course, one should always believe what some random bloke on the internet tells you). What is the other of your "2 favourite films of all time"? (Only answer that if the beavers let you: you don't want to cause trouble for yourself later.) -Gwinva (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned on my user page, here. Yep, couldn't agree more about Costner and baseball, which is why I didn't bother fronting up at the cinema, and when I eventually saw it, it was because I had no choice. I wasn't expecting too much - but I was hooked from the first minute and it just got better. Btw, baseball is not what it's about, and there's very little baseball in it. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, as long you aren't her Maffradite, I suppose no one will mind . . . ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Her, his, even its ... when it comes to such choices, it hardly matters, Bielle, as long as you're having fun and the other party doesn't seem to mind too much.  :)  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What's redundant about Corby being listed here? I've reverted your change. -- Longhair\^talk 09:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

She appears after Si Yi Chen, and then again after Renae Lawrence. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted. For a moment there I thought she was coming home and you were eager to see all memory of her stay in Indonesia removed. Sorry for the slip. All's well ;) -- Longhair\^talk 09:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Go in peace. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for barging into your talk page, as if my prolix musings on merging the pianist lists weren't bad enough. Wearying of always seeing a red link for "Jacques Abram" as the first name on that and the recorded pianists lists, I just put up a sketchy article about him. Checking "what links here," I see that on the page listing your published letters you have given information about his involvement with Arthur Benjamin's 1949 Concerto quasi una Fantasia for piano and orchestra. I hesitate simply to copy your material over, as I don't know and hence can't list your sources, but you obviously have good ones, and the information, which was news to me, would definitely strengthen the article no end. Would you be willing to do the honors, or to direct me to your sources? Thanks! Drhoehl (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Never any need to apologise for talking, Drhoehl. If only there was more talk and less negative action in the world. There are various online sources for the Benjamin premieres by Abram, such as here and here. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I've added the information, keyed to the MusicWeb site as a reference. Now I'm going to go bone up a bit on Benjamin, about whom I know rather little (and of whose Australian ancestry, I blush to say, I was completely unaware). Drhoehl (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

but i'm at work so no sig, anyhoo wot does 'afaik' mean? have seen this used by others i think it means 'i think' funnily enough, but just want to check, thanks jackofOx! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.254.82 (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, it means "as far as I know".  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks jack, next time i will give it a bit more thought before running to your kind self :) perry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.254.82 (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. We all wonder what the hell these things mean the first time we come across them. There's a full list here. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What can i say (now follows a predictable use of newly learnt abbs) ta, godwins law made for wiki :)Perry-mankster (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The penny's just dropped, Perry. I assumed from the header "hi jack perry here" that you were identifying yourself as one "Jack Perry", and you'd contacted me because we have the same first name. But, no. You're the famous Perry-mankster. Why didn't you say so, naughty boy! -- JackofOz (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

mmmmm you being a champion of grammer as well, i shud a' used yon comma eh? thin a' wud have bin a bit mair readabil likesay catboy, love the v naughty boy Perry-mankster (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

We have the same favorite painting! :) That makes me all happy and nerdy. (My favorite thing is to compare that painting with his original version from six years before. The difference just blows my mind.) --Masamage ♫ 00:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Whee, right back at you, Masamage! Or may I call you Rachel. So few people seem ever to have even heard of Bouguerau, so it's wonderful to find a fellow-admirer out there. With a very specific commonality like this, you and I have clearly become instant life-long friends. The earlier version is wonderful too, but the final version wins hands down for me. It's cleaner, brighter, and ... well, sexier.

Btw, I looked for ages for a Wiki-image and couldn't track it down because I was looking under the title Le ravissement de Psyché, the only French version of the name I've ever known; yet the title on the image is L'enlèvement de Psyché. Do you know anything about this alternative title? Many thanks. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hee hee. I think I stumbled upon Bouguereau either through the Birth of Venus or Dante and Virgil in Hell, and then got completely hooked by the gallery in his WP article (and the even bigger one over at the Commons). Anyway, because I found out about him through Wikipedia, so I can't really comment on the alternate titles. Just to see, I checked his article over at the French Wikipedia, and they list it as L'Enlevement de Psyché, too. Seems like it oughtta be reliable. (I think "ravissement" actually means "rape," although at least in English that word just meant "kidnapping" until fairly recently, so who knows what's going on there.)

I like the first one, too; but the thing that really strikes me about the second one is how much happier they both look. It's awesome. They also both have faces that look like they could be real people I just happen not to have met yet, whereas the faces on the old one are more like templates. --Masamage ♫ 05:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jack, asking you about Russian words here[1] on the question of that elusive oxymoron. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd mention that I love Tired!Jack, if I may slip into fan-speak. Your sleep-deprived comments on the desks have quite brightened my day! Incidentally, the anonymous comment you brought up on the talk page made me slightly uneasy too, but sadly it's probably the sort of situation when leaving it has more success than getting worked up. Just so you don't feel like you were all alone on this :D

Random comment on reading 'nun the less' and suchlike above: have you read any Jasper Fforde? I think you'd probably find it amusing. Skittle (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Skittle. That means more to me than I can possibly express. I have indeed let it go. Re-reading my cyber-activity from yesterday with the benefit of a very good night's sleep, I give myself a slap on the wrist for being slightly manic. But just a tap, nothing too self-brutalising.

Have you caught up with the 3 nuns' latest adventures here? It was extraordinarily naughty of me to do that, I know, in more ways than one. I wasn't planning to do it, it just seemed to come out of me unbidden. When I see "atheist" spelled like the superlative form of a non-existent adjective, something weird happens in my odd little brain and I am powerless to prevent it. I sincerely hope no one thought I was mocking the poster. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

No, I've never reade Fforde and I was only very vaguely even aware of him. But DCI Jack Spratt seems like someone I should get to know intimately. I will track him down and bring him to consciousness very soon. Thanks for the tip-off. Best wishes. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I replied to your Reference Desk question: "... [is there] any other English word apart from Uruguay (ignoring Uruguayan) in which the same vowel appears 3 times and is pronounced in 3 different ways ..." I submit the word "Panama". As pronounced in Amercian English, it's pænəma, although in Spanish the vowels should all be pronounced the same. Thomprod (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jackoz, thanks for making me laugh lots. Here's to the real Australia – I qualify my bad example on the refdesk, : )) (PS when I was in the real Australia, it helped to be driving a beast of a 20-y o fourby. Instead, people's fingers were strapped across their mouths at the incongruity of it all.) Julia Rossi (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Good day, Jack. In reply to your kind suggestion and offer under "Asking the impossible", I retrieved this info from questionable sources, but the only online reference I found was a bloggy German music site. Given the level of discussion, Ligeti's sense of humor, and also his appreciation of and frequent reference to Schumann, it remains likely, in my opinion. I will have to check a published score though, or better perhaps, a reliable secondary source. I agree, it would be a fun addition. Wish I could say that I will hop to it faster than as fast as possible, and even faster than Schumann's "noch schneller", but it might take me a while. For prestissimo, we should turn to someone like Antandrus or S.dedalus ... ---Sluzzelin talk 13:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a brief nihil-update: My favorite music store didn't have the score, the Ligeti books I found didn't refer to the tempo marking. I have a CD featuring Continuum. Schumann isn't mentioned in the liner notes, but there is a reproduction of the first sheet's top half. The tempo marking is " prestissimo * ". The bottom half is missing, and I really wish I knew what the asterisk/footnote refers to. Will keep looking, larghissimo. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Unchanged rather. WDR 3's program here has it in quotes, but that is all I found online. I haven't given up, and I'll get my hands on the score eventually. (Without having to buy it, of course) ---Sluzzelin talk 04:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Jack. You are a man of erudite pastimes, thus I'm hoping you can offer me some advice. As I noted on Clio's talk page, I'll be in Australia for a few weeks next month. In addition to the usual tourist activities, I am looking for things to occupy my time and wondered if you had any recommendations of things to see or places to visit. I'm splitting my time fairly evenly between Adelaide, Melbourne (and I intend to spend a few days driving between them) and then fly to Sydney. Thanks. Rockpocket 18:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rockpocket. Is this your first visit down under? Welcome, indeed. I've only been to Adelaide a handful of times, and my tastes when visiting new places are probably quite out of the ordinary (really good book shops; coffee houses; music venues, etc). It's known as the City of Churches, so if that's up your alley you have a multitude of options. The Adelaide Zoo is renowned. You're best advised to access an Adelaide tourist site for better ideas. The Barossa Valley and the southern winery region are great to visit, even if you're not a wino. On the way to Melbourne, you can visit the Blue Lake at Mt Gambier, although it's only blue during a certain part of the year and may not be blue when you're there. There are many good caves open to the public around south-eastern South Australia and western Victoria, but I haven't been speleologically inclined for decades now so I can't attest to their current status. The one near Naracoorte was excellent when I last visited it, back in the 70s. Be sure to take the coast road to Melbourne and experience the Great Ocean Road - I hope the weather is fine, because when the sky is clear blue, it's a simply breathtaking experience. The Twelve Apostles are quite a sight, as are similar formations along the way. Melbourne itself - obviously a lot to see and do, and it will depend on how much time you have on your hands. Rather than suggesting things at random, can you perhaps narrow down your areas of interest and tell me how much time you'll have. (We're heading off to Melbourne ourselves in a couple of hours for 2 nights, and my availability over the weekend will be limited, but I'll respond when and as I can.) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack. I tentatively expect to spend about five or six days each in Sydney, Adelaide and Melbourne. I'm a nature geek, of course, so I plan to see as much of the unique Australian wildlife as I can at zoos, parks and on Kangaroo Island. I also love going to museums and will try and catch you cave you mentioned near Naracoorte and fully plan to explore some wineries. I'm quite a seasoned traveler, so can usually find my way to the usual spots, but I was wondering whether there was city favorites you might personally recommend that isn't in the guidebooks, be it idiosyncratic cafes, nice resturants, areas, parks or sights. If nothing springs to mind, don't worry though, exploring is always part of the fun. Rockpocket 04:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Poor Brahms... He'd be squirming around in his coffin if he were to read your page of insults, a quarter of which are solely devoted to belittleing Brahms. I'm sure you could dig up some dirt on Tchaikovsky if you tried! ^ ^ (Seriously though, go to a concert which includes Brahm's 3rd and just listen.)--Daftism (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear friend, you seem to have made the assumption that I necessarily agree with all those insults. Of course, I don't. They're there because they're humorous, and in some cases, ludicrous. I'd include Nicolas Slonimsky's entire Lexicon of Musical Invective if I had space for it, but that doesn't mean I agree with all those absurd critiques. On Brahms, he did seem to come in for a bit of a tongue-lashing, but he can stand on his own two feet. I love his music, and he's one of the select few who appear on my list of favourite composers. But it's interesting that you pick the 3rd Symphony. There's no accounting for tastes, but for me, the 3rd is overall the least interesting of the 4. It has fine moments, but on balance it's not a patch on the 4th or the 2nd. The 1st would come next; and the 3rd last. But that's just me. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No, your on the right track.68.148.164.166 (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Some stuff on Pachelbel which I remembered too late to add to the question on the ref desk:

• I stumbled over some genealogical data which indicate that the family originally moved to Nuremberg from Moravia sometime in the 14th century. Moravia (also Bohemia and Silesia) had then (and until the end of WWII) a German speaking minority.
• I checked the German telephone directory and found some measly 10 Pachelbels, all residing in the Frankish part of Bavaria (Oberbayern) or not far away. Whilst it seems to be a German name (as per the Duden reference I gave on the RD), it is clearly extremely infrequent and presumable the result of the medieval emmigrant / immigrant / migrant. This would explain your friend classifying it as a foreign name.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

just a referance check, in your revision of 24/5/07 you added that charlie did his boilermaking at BHP. I am pretty sure it was actually at the State Dockyard. Have you any referance?

I made no such edit. All I did was link BHP; the information was already there. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack, I took out the secton on "Musical Form" from the Tchaikovsky article since it dealt mainly with the symphonies and not with his music in general. (Maybe it will make a good separate article later—we'll see.) In its place I added a section on T's aesthetics, which seems to fit better with the article on the whole and as a follow-up to the section on Imperial Style and the now-much-truncated section on his musical style. It still seems rough but otherwise a good fit. Still, I'd really appreciate if you could look at it when you have some time. The aesthetics section was written in one fell swoop yesterday, so it's still pretty fresh. Thanks! Jonyungk (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Dating info. now posted under your question on Humanities, and on the relevant talk page. Byeeee! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Best. Quip. Ever. [2] bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 01:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank. You. Very. Much. By. The. Way. Why. Are. We. Making. Sentences. Out. Of. Every. Word? -- JackofOz (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey ho. Someone has deleted gay material as too dubious. Can you weigh in? I tried to go through the edit summaries to see who added the refs but can't see it. Can you? (Or maybe you don't want to bother -- fair enough. ) Thanks BrainyBabe (talk) 06:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, BB. I honestly have no idea. I wouldn't have removed those cites; they seem ok to me. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This edit and this edit, only eleven hours and seventeen minutes apart, but a pure coincidence, I swear, I just noticed it now! (Of course I never even bothered to check the talk page. My question was prompted by an edit war in which I played the part of the bad warrior in the wrong :-( ) Take care! ---Sluzzelin talk 20:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Spooky Sluzzelin. Hey, that brings back memories. I must get Сталкер on DVD and watch it again. No worries about stalking, though. I'm forever checking out edits made by "persons of interest" when I might otherwise have skipped over them until the article next popped up on my watchlist. I don't call that stalking. But thanks for caring, mate. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just wrote an article on John Caldwell (Michigan State Representative) who was given the name George Washington Caldwell at birth because he was born on the Fourth of July. Appreciate any tweaking you might have time for. Also submitted for DYK. Thanks. --Doug ^talk 22:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that your removal of that young whippersnapper's comment on the talk page of the Brahms article was inconsiderate. As we know, the Brahms article has been the subject of frequent vandalism, apparently, as User:Antandrus has suggested, because Brahms is often the subject of papers by unruly, pimple-encrusted teenagers. These little jerks want to leave some kind of documentary evidence in the wikipedia - why should we editors have all the fun.

In this case, the little jerk left his mark not on the article, but on the talk page. And, while his comment is inane and valueless to the general discussion, it was important to him, and it was a lot better than mucking up the article with comments about rat feces. So, rather than reverting him, we should perhaps consider encouraging this behavior.

I wanted to discuss this with you, before restoring his comment myself. What do you think? --Ravpapa (talk) 05:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ravpapa. Well, blow me down. Inconsiderate? To whom? Almost all WP articles get vandalised, some often, some only occasionally, but sooner or later it will happen to virtually all of them. Talk pages are less frequently vandalised, but it still happens. Does the post in question qualify as vandalism? It depends on your definition, I suppose. It certainly added nothing, as you've noted, and in that sense it was definitely inappropriate. May I draw your attention to WP:Talk, in particular:

• Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.

You may do, but I don't have the luxury of assuming all kinds of things about the identity or life circumstances of anonymous posters (or even registered users, for that matter), so I don't base my response to such posts on whether I think they're "young whippersnappers", doctors of philosophy, or Martians. It's the content that I judge, unaffected by the perceived age or anything else about the editor. OK, so this case is a lesser evil than some malicious troll who alters significant words in the text of the article. But it's still inappropriate behaviour, even for a talk page, and it deserves a response commensurate with that. Were you miffed by my use of the word "silly" in my edit summary? Are you saying I should have been welcoming to this newcomer, and that my remark amounted to biting him? Firmness of view and taking immediate action are not the same thing as aggressiveness. And again, assuming he's a newcomer is not a luxury I have. Being unregistered, he may have done similar things from 20 other computers for all I know. I don't take the view that we have to tolerate the lesser of any 2 evils chosen at random. You can always hypothesise something worse than whatever is under discussion, so it's always possible to rationalise any behaviour with the "at least it's not as bad as X" argument. That cuts no ice with me, I'm afraid. As for actually encouraging (!!!!!) such behaviour, kindly count me out. Since I do take your post seriously, I have to tell you how much I disagree with your position. I also have to warn you that if you're serious about restoring his post, and go ahead and do it, I will remove it again. There would be literally thousands of precedents that support my position. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if you feel so strongly about it, we'll leave it alone. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted to reply to your question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Not a problem (permlink). Dorftrottel (warn) 21:08, April 30, 2008

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can't get to the pages by cutting and pasting (or typing) the URLs in your browser, and are sufficently curious, let me know and I'll find a way to get them to you. I was particularly taken by the "comments on candidates" page, which lists the slave-owning ancestors of Obama & McCain, points out that Roosevelt was the first president with an ancestor born in Africa, and indicates that Clinton would be the first president with French-Canadian ancestry. - Nunh-huh 07:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have considered all posibilities, food , anmimal pets, drafts are definatley out of the question, but sound is a possiblity as it would explain why my mothers dog is also aware of it. But not necessary why it finds it so friegthening, I could be mistaking paijn for fear. Not everything can be explained by science at this moment in time and scientists are often wrong. Theoris change all the time a Japanese genetist discovered that genetic pattens of living cells could be converted into musical notes "He realised that genes not only contained a blueprint of human life but carry a tune" a short time ago people would never have beleived this and I expect many still find it difficult to comprehend. Animals have many abilities we have lost over time, why is it some dogs can detect there owners have cancer even when they dont know it themselves noni46

15:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC) .--Noni46 (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Jack, I quite agree with you, and discussed at length this matter with Dantadd (the editor who changed the spelling; you may follow the discussion on his talk page, if you want), but it was to no avail. Dantadd claims that the current spelling rules of the Portuguese language should apply. I disagreed and explained my reasons in detail, but he remained adamant. So, in order to avoid an edit war, I decided to let it be. At least I got him to include the "archaic spelling Novaes" in the article. Best regards, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with both of you, but I understand your arguments. You can make the change, just please let me know when you do it and I'll make a proper note about the orthographic question. Dantadd (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Good show, Jack. Much better this way. It's a shame it didn't occur to me to put you in the loop at the beginning of this discussion ! Best regards, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

G'day Jack!
"CVO - correct person?"

"he was awarded the CVO in 2000 so there's no need for this note, which might be misinterpreted as meaning it was for a different Michael Jeffery"

Well, that was sort of the point. Was he awarded the CVO in 2000, and is that "Michael Jeffery" the same person as "Philip Michael Jeffrey"? I gather your reply means "Yes", but I couldn't find anything to confirm it. Do you have a source other than "It's an Honour"? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Pdfpdf. Nothing explicit, but we read on his website [3] that he "became a Companion of the Order of Australia, a Commander of the Royal Victorian Order and a Citizen of Western Australia for his services to the State. He was Governor until 2000". This doesn't say exactly when he got the CVO, but it would be totally consistent with normal practice for the Queen to give him a CVO at the end of his term as Governor in 2000 in gratitude for his services. Further, only one Michael Jeffery has ever been given a CVO, and the GG has a CVO, so the conclusion is inescapable. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

so the conclusion is inescapable - So it would seem! Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. Just theorising here (that’s what I do for kicks, such is my life). You may not be aware – I wasn’t till late last year– that not all honours are on It’s an Honour. See Talk:Fred Schepisi for a bit of a story about my research to discover why Schepisi mentions his AO on his website but it doesn’t appear on It’s an Honour.

So, it’s possible that (a) G-G Jeffery got his CVO at some time other than 2000 and ticked the box that said not to publish the details, and (b) the Michael Jeffery on It’s an Honour really is a different Michael Jeffery. Possible, but I think extraordinarily unlikely. CVOs are in the monarch’s personal gift, and tend to be given to people who work in vice-regal households, or behind the scenes planning royal visits, etc. How likely is it that a different Michael Jeffery has had some connection with such things? Not very. Surely this hypothetical person would have come to attention before. Jeffery is hardly a common surname for starters, and 2 Michael Jefferys would really be stretching it. Thanks for the opportunity to get this off my chest. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Passing by and noticed this - not sure whether this is all now ancient history, but is the second entry on this page helpful? "No. 55839". The London Gazette. 5 May 2000. {{cite magazine}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Bencherlite^Talk 11:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very. (Although I note they misspelled his name as Jeffrey. The poor bloke must get this all the f***ing time, so I guess he's used to it by now). Thanks. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jack, Now that you mention it, many years ago I wondered idly, when in Katoomba, what this annual processions were for. Hundreds of penitents, in sackcloth and ashes, flagellating their bare bottoms, somewhat reminiscent of a multitude of grubby sperm on their pilgrimage towards the Fallopian Tubes, stumbling - lemminglike - towards the highest peak of the Three Sisters, where, reenacting the moment of their penile departure to the unknown universe beyond, they plummeted into the fertile bushland.
Well, I will not cause any further traumatic scars to your innocent mind, but, sadly, even the sole little critter surviving was gobbled up greedily by a slimy white monster wallowing with gaping jaws in between the towering gum trees at the bottom of the cliff.
My friends name is Antony Hazeltine, email address is <a.leza.h@hotmail.com>. Maybe the story of the diplomat / politician getting lost in Sydney rings a bell in his memory. Greetings to Down Under (I miss it quite often).
--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Jack, the poster that Cap'n D was responding to is on the short list of suspected trolling sockpuppets from the Avril Lavigne school of trollery. See the posts on the RD talk page under "Avril Trolls in May". --LarryMac | Talk 15:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Larry. That may well be true, but that doesn't of itself make this particular post an act of trollery. I couldn't see anything trollish about it. I don't believe in the "once a troll, always a troll" philosophy. Surely, when known or suspected trolls actually make useful edits and/or ask non-disruptive questions, we should be supporting that behaviour. Maybe not a gold star, but we can at least refrain from pointing the finger and assuming some evil ulterior agenda. That seems to breach AGF, which is arguably just as bad a behaviour as the trolling itself. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

We'll have to disagree on this one. The threat was made, the suspect contributions began. I'll go with the "walks like a duck" philosophy myself. As far as AGF and any other policies, I'll let my history on the desks speak for itself. --LarryMac | Talk 16:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I'm still lacking any evidence that this question actually disrupted anyone, which for me is the only test that matters. Surely we can consider each question on its own merits, no matter who it's from, without judging it through the prism of our attitude to the questioner. I still say it was a reasonable question, and the folks who've provided answers obviously think so too. Everyone was happy and the system was working the way it was intended to work. Who has the right to intervene in that process? I'm not saying that we shouldn't be on the lookout for trolls or that we shouldn't take appropriate action when they do their darndest, but every now and then they might make a worthwhile contribution or ask a fair question, and when they do that they should be treated no differently from anyone else who asks a fair question. Maybe I'm naive, maybe I'm too trusting, but that's what makes me the wonderful and magnificent human I am. But then I don't agree with the view that whenever the same user asks more than one question on the same topic, that this is ipso facto trollish behaviour. I agree this user didn't do themself any favours by making that threat, but who knows what position they were defending? I certainly don't presume to know. I'll just finish by noting that this has taken up about 90 minutes of my valuable time, whereas if the Troll Alert flag hadn't been raised, that wouldn't have happened. So who's disrupting whom here? Sometimes we can be just a little over-zealous in our anti-trolling campaigns, and that causes just as much damage as the damage we're seeking to stamp out. -- JackofOz (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you chose to take the time, just like I'm choosing to take the time right now. And that's pretty much the point: if someone is asking questions they already know the answer to, or questions that are designed to produce a certain answer, they are doing exactly that -- wasting our time. I don't mind spending my time on legitimate questions, but when someone is just playing around like that, it's a waste of resources and has an adverse effect on the morale of the people spending their time on the reference desk. And yes, of course, it can be argued that pointing out that someone is a troll -- and honestly, in this instance, to believe that the person in question is not a troll takes a conscious effort to do so -- also has an adverse effect on that morale, but at least in the latter case, the person doing so is operating from a position of sincerity. To me, that's a significant difference.

Also, assuming good faith only goes so far. It's not something that makes someone's behavior completely impervious to criticism, particularly when an obvious pattern emerges. (In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you're probably assuming good faith on my part, and it's not like that keeps you from criticizing my decision to call the user in question a troll. Which is fine by me; your reason for doing so strikes me as pretty reasonable. It's not a stupid argument to make. I just disagree.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Jack, about an hour before this post there began a battery of legitimate questions (on the Science and Misc desks) dealing with evolutionary biology, astronomy, geology, public administration (and many others), all of them from five of six different user accounts, all created very recently and all (I believe) from the same Avril/Summer troll. The science questions were mostly from Scientific American's website and a few other online forums. I'm sure you would agree that AGF is right out of the window at this stage, right?

I think that it would be unfair to someone who went out of their way to provide a thorough answer (some of the questions were not exactly straighforward) when the OP (seemingly) doesn't care. Even if the question doesn't disrupt anyone, this type of behaviour shouldn't tolerated.

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello there, Jack. I feel like I owe you at least a bottle of wine, if not the infamous Ligetapocryphy. More on topic of this thread:

I think alerting volunteers about a series of questions on one ephemeral topic is a good thing. Where this should be done — WT:RD, volunteer talk page, thread at desk? — is another question. Reporting speedy removals of perceived trollery on the talk page is probably a good thing too, but I even understand the concept of silent removals, while informing the querent with a reasoned explanation, and trying to persuade him to explain and/or change his approach. To echo Jack, I think we should also go for the solution that wastes the least time and energy in general, and especially on the pages themselves. I'm stuck to this mental image of a library, and I don't like it when people shout (or whisper aggressively) in libraries. Save that for the talk pages ;-).

I always see WP:AGF as a sensible operational editing mode, not as a denial of occam's razor or gut feelings. Think what you want, no one is asking you to turn your brain off, but let your writing reflect the assumption of good faith. We're not always that candid in real life face-to-face exchanges, it shouldn't be that difficult online.

Finally, please don't let this upset you or drive you away. (I saw LarryMac's Cartman edit summary on the talk page, which made me chuckle and sad at the same time.) Once we let this disrupt and frustrate, the trolls are dancing till noon. Respectfully, and, for the record, I will never complain if one of my posts was in a thread that got removed for good reason by a responsible editor. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey. Jet lag hits me like a ton of bricks. Just got back from Hungary/Slovakia. You wanted to know how the quitting smoking was working out, well, I haven't had a puff since the middle of January. I give Chantix full credit for getting me off the weed. The side effects were all psychological, but rather bothersome. I dreamed that I was Linda Fiorentino, which is really weird for a guy like me, not so much maybe for a guy like some others. At least I was fairly good-looking, though, right? That's when I decided not to do month three of three and discovered that I was no longer addicted to nicotine. I am now a non-smoker. I do miss it, but it makes those long plane rides a tad nicer. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey. I got a little side-tracked, too. Great news about the smokes. When I decide that I actually want to give up, I might try Chantix too. Linda F, eh - I know her not, so I can't comment on how good you look in your dreams. Now, just what does "a guy like me" mean? -- JackofOz (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A hopelessly heterosexual guy. She's an actress, the morgue lady in "Men in Black" and the scion in "Dogma". You've seen her without knowing it, but let's not talk about her any more. Don't quit smoking unless you have a good reason, like you don't want to smell like a wet ashtray or you're narcoleptic. It sucks not to smoke. I know what those junkies mean now when they say you stay a junkie all your life whether you use or not. Smoke one just for me, will you? --Milkbreath (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you're between a rock and a hard place. You wanted to give up, and you did, and you're happy about that. But at the same time you're not happy because you want not to have wanted to give up, even though you did want to give up. Don't try too hard to want not to have wanted to give up because you may get your wish, and that would be disastrous. Being an ex-smoker like you is far better than a guy like me whose main claim to fame is that he used to be an ex-smoker. Have a lungful of clean, fresh air for me, will you? And have a few extra dollars in your pocket each and every day for the rest of your life for me, will you? And have a longer life expectancy for me, will you? -- JackofOz (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you were heavily involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Responding to suicidal individuals some time ago I thought you might be interested in discussing the merits of a similar but slightly different proposal here. I would be very interested in your opinion. Cheers, --S.dedalus (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I thought it a bit strange when I read on the Grove that he had received the "Award of Merit". I guess it's one of their many typos!

BTW, did you like the article? I'm not usually that happy with my articles, but I was quite pleased with the way that one turned out. Gatoclass (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will fix the dab problem, just give me a few minutes.

How did I come to write an article about Hanson? Well, I was teaching myself piano once. I just got to the stage where I was getting the hang of sight reading (which was making a huge difference) when I lost access to a keyboard, and since I've never been able to bring myself to fork out for a piano, I'm afraid my piano career hasn't progressed since then :)

However, I do particularly remember a little piece I learned, call "The Garden Seat" by a guy called Raymond Hanson. And I liked it a lot. So that's how come I ended up writing an article on the guy :) Gatoclass (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have moved Raymond Hanson (composer) back to Raymond Hanson. There was no need to disambiguate the former's name in any case, since the other guy was already disambiguated as Raymond Hanson (cricketer). What I neglected to do earlier, was to slap an "othernames" template at the top of the article. That's done now, so the problem is fixed. Gatoclass (talk) 10:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. You've got me intrigued now - I know Hanson by reputation, and I've heard a few of his orchestral pieces and his Trumpet Concerto over the years, but I've never heard his piano work. I will definitely search out "The Garden Seat" and see what it's like. Just one minor detail - the talk page for Raymond Hanson is still called "Talk: Raymond Hanson (composer)". Sorry for making work for you. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed - did you see my note above about Michael Jeffrey, incidentally? Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 22:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Can You give a ref. for Erick Hawkins name at birth? I didn't see it in an y articles or obits on this great dancer. Kdammers (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

all kinds of classes can enjoy the activity you mentioned, however, it helps to be a bit unihibited and comfortable with your breeding. JeanLatore (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the message. My question was not a serious enquiry. It was intended to demonstrate the contrast between your apparent focus on the social class of people playing basketball vs baseball, and your interest in writing an article on a porno. Does that not strike you as a little incongruous? All the best. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't writing an article on porno. I wrote about a sexual study done in South Florida. JeanLatore (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Is that what Anal Sex with Sluts (deletion affirmed at WP:DRV but I'm working on re-writing it) refers to? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes exactly. It's a wide ranging study but too generalised in its first incarnation. I am categorising the research right now and its taking much longer than expected. JeanLatore (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're really serious, JeanLatore. This is fairly telling. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I am dead serious, sir. I love anal sex! It's all we do here. JeanLatore (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And all we do around here is write a credible encyclopedia without disruption from people who are not interested in playing by the rules, but only interested in wasting the time of others. "By their fruits ye shall know them". Time to clean up your act, or move on. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

What are you some kind of bible-freak? Get off my cloud, man! And I bet I have more scholarly edits to articles than you do, just look at my contribs. JeanLatore (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I particularly liked this one: Illinois v. Gates. JeanLatore (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been editing the Carmen Lawrence article and I was adding in a bit about how she gave the above lecture for 1994. I can't find any reference to this lecture series in the John Curtin article. I'm reluctant to tamper with a B-class; do you think it's worthy of a mention? Retarius | Talk 06:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Retarius. I know nothing about the JCML except what this tells me. Clearly, only Labor heavyweights get asked, not just any old Joe. I'd say it deserves an article, but even without that I see no reason why it shouldn't be mentioned in all the speakers' articles. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have consistently admired your work on parliamentary procedure and the like - was curious to know if you know of any good sources on responsible government (i.e. the Westminster idea that cabinets should be made accountable to legislatures by having to be chosen from them)? I'm thinking of doing some serious work on that page. Orderinchaos 16:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Orderinchaos. Thanks for the compliment. I've never studied this subject formally, just been exposed to it at the coal face for a number of years. So I can't really recommend any resources, but I'm sure they're out there somewhere. Sorry. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, no worries - that's fair enough. I've only just begun studying it formally, am hoping to apply some of my newfound knowledge and research skills to improving our coverage of general topics. Orderinchaos 04:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That is because the Estate of Paul Bowles have had the webmaster of their official website sitting on this page since 2005, editing any info they disliked and removing all gay refs see User:BKLisenbee's edits in the page history. You are welcome to try bring some truth to this page Opiumjones 23 (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Jack, I did not mean that you were conceited but rather that the info from the official Paul Bowles Estate site was. Left further on the talk pageOpiumjones 23 (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making me laugh this morning with your original and funny posts on the Gandhi talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I know you weren't suggesting she wasnt notable, I was just kidding. Thanks for the question, one of the most challenging for a long time, I really enjoyed a Sunday searching! She would be a great project for a Masters student. Mhicaoidh (talk) 08:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ta Da! [4]. And that is the sum total of my Gaelic knowledge. I would like to change the spelling of my name closer to the Gaelic transliteration but I fear my phone will never ring again and those lucrative commissions would cease to flow in....My family migrated with this guy, Norman McLeod, and thats me being picky on a talk page again. Really must edit an article one day... They turned up their noses at Adelaide and Melbourne, preferring a couple of NZ paddocks in the middle of nowhere. Regards Mhicaoidh (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We have been busy on your behalf, or, at least, Mrs Mhicaoidh has. See [5] and [6]. How did you get on with your book hunt? I want to know what she's like!! Gwinva (talk) 09:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The question will evaporate into the ether oops I mean archive very shortly. Farewell Mary. You had legs, as a question anyway, for we knew you not as a woman. What shall we do with the information we have acrued? Form a club that meets once a year? Erect a monument somewhere? Create a bequest for budding romance writers? Or...mumblemumbleeditarticle....Mhicaoidh (talk) 02:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I know what I'll be doing, and you and Gwinva are both welcome to join me. For years I've been asking myself what I really, really wanted to do with my life, why am I here, what's the meaning of existence, etc. And now I know. It's obviously to make Mary's name known far and wide. We've done what we can so far, but there's a whole lifetime's worth of more work to be done. One day, who knows, I might actually read one of her books. Stranger things have happened. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like the list of books you mentioned, how do I give you my email? Mhicaoidh (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the list, Jack. Will respond in more depth when I have a moment. Gwinva (talk) 05:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Where is the Centre for Marian Studies based? Do we continue to meet on the archived Humanities page, or dedicated user subpage, or off-wiki? (This might be a little forumy for her own talk page.) I have a few minor observations to make following my perusal of that list, plus expect great things from the soon-to-arrive-at-my-library interloaned Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. Let's hope it doesn't disappoint. Gwinva (talk) 04:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Poor Mary is rendered quite insignificant. Philip M. Parker has written 200,000 books! Gwinva (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Amazed to see anybody else interested in either of these two Australians - its a shame the article on William is so sparse. Dan arndt (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right about people being familar with the name Horrie Dargie - interesting enough when I created the article there had been a previous article which had been deleted as it was considered Horrie was not notable!! (can you believe it) The reason that I created it was that I have been working on a project to improve all the ARIA Hall of Fame inductees and Horrie was the only one without an article. Am happy to have someone else 'flesh' out the article as I am less than familar with the subject, well before my time. Dan arndt (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it depends on how notability is defined, I guess. Ask a passing stranger who Horrie Dargie was, and 95 out of 100 would have no idea. But ask someone who was around when he was a big name, like me (OK, I have to grudgingly accept I'm "middle-aged" these days), that's something different. But really, I have no more knowledge of him than my memories of seeing his Quintet of harmonicas playing on early TV. A bit passe these days, but they were great in their day. Thanks for evoking some very nostalgic memories of my boyhood. Horrie and William are on my watchlist now, so I'll fiddle with them from time to time. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If my memory or my research serves me correctly Horrie was responsible for introducing a whole series of variety shows on television, when it was still in its infancy in Australia - so he was more than significant if Australia's early tv programming. BTW I wasn't implying anything about your age just that until I looked up the details I was one of those 95 out of 100 but now I know I feel that his 'notability' was more than just the fact that he was the first Australian to achieve gold record status. The when I was researching Horrie I found more about his brother William and started to realise that he was more renowned than his brother. So hopefully between the two of us fiddling on these articles we can improve them to a higher status. Dan arndt (talk) 04:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Good work - but a number of paragraphs seem to be almost verbatim from the sources, which isn't really a good idea, as a whole I don't think it amounts to a copyvio, but for my taste it's sailing a little clsoe to the wind. David Underdown (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, David, and for your quick work cleaning up the refs etc. I thought the sources were generally well-written and comprehensive, so there wasn't a great deal I could do to make it independently written, not being a believer in change for its own sake. But it's early days; when editors become aware of the article, I'm sure it'll become unrecognisable in due course. I'm still stunned there was no article on Davies until now. We'll also need a disambig page since Meredith Davies leads to something rather unprepossessing. Maybe a redirect is in order since my guy would win hands down in the notability stakes. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I know it can be difficult to "improve" on the work of the pros, but I certainly try and paraphrase when working from similar sources myself. See Robert Timbrell and Graham Charles Chadwick for a couple of my efforts - and I'm just in the process of trying to do it for Henry Chadwick. There's also a bot User:CorenSearchBot which checks for copyvios, a couple fo the phrases you used are quite distinctive, I don't know whether they'll be enough to set it off. David Underdown (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you make a separate page to archive your stuff?Coffsneeze (not Coff N. Sneeze) (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Coffsneeze (gesundheit!). I've done it a few times but I have to recreate the wheel every time because I never quite remember the sequence. I'll be doing it again soon, and I'll document the process and let you know. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

They're not famous for anything but my two brothers are three years apart and have the same birthday. They're not even blood relations either as one of them was adopted... from a different country. Just thought that might one day make an interesting anecdote for you if you're interested in shared birthdays. Dismas|^(talk) 10:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Dismas. Most interesting. Your family is doing its bit for posterity, for which posterity thanks you sincerely. But you've still a little way to go before beating the Cummins family of Virginia: their 5 natural-born children were all born on 20 February, in 1952, 1953, 1956, 1961 and 1966. And special mention must go to the Henriksens of Andenes, Norway: their 3 kids were born in 1960, 1964 and 1968, all on Leap Day 29 February. Quite a feat to coordinate that one. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This. I don't think I've ever seen you make a mistake before. Nice to kow you're not some kind of advanced bot. :) Cheers, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 06:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, Zain, but with respect I think that says more about your powers of observation than about my perfection. I make LOTS of mistakes. Mind you, I take pride in getting it right first time, so I do check my work thoroughly before I post it, which usually means previewing it more than once, and with complex posts, maybe half a dozen times. But, like everyone else, I often see what I intended to write, not what I actually wrote. Until some time later when it glares out at me and I think "How the hell did I do that?". Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jack. I quoted you here. Please check and point out if it was done out of context or inappropriately. Thanks, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

All present and correct, Zain. It's completely understandable why one would want to quote me at all times and on all occasions. Indeed, I was getting so many requests that I had to employ a secretary. Then I decided that the best course would be the generous one. My generosity was made easier by the facts that I was making little by way of royalties, and my secretary was costing me a fortune (champagne, caviar, the opera, on top of his exorbitant salary). So I relinquished my copyright, and prior permission is no longer required. I also made my secretary my lover, to save having to pay him a salary. I still take him to the opera, but I would have taken someone else anyway. It all worked out beautifully for us in the end, and the world is a richer place as well. That's what I call a win-win situation:) But thanks for the courtesy of letting me know you'd done it. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Thank you, Jack. And it's very good to know that I can freely enrich the world with your posts. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

PC Advisory: dialect humor (but I'm allowed 'cause it's my people's dialect...): Back in Brooklyn, the old folks usta say: "You ken send a goil to Vasser, but you ken't make 'er tink!" (But hey! I like your version better. This is my acknowledgement/thanks by way of quid pro quo...?) -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. thanks for the dates. Do you have a reference? cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, here it is - [7]. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks, wanted to do it, procrastinated ... but you can always count on Jack! I know you dislike barnstars (thankfully I gave you a different prizzzze), but I would like to point out that I've always found your transfer of RD info into article space a source of inspiration, and occasionally I've even tried to emulate. If the desks should ever be up for deletion, you will be one of our strongest arguments for keep. Take care. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

He he he. Actually, what I meant was that I dislike giving barnstars. Receiving them ... well, that's a different matter entirely.  :) You're very welcome, my friend, and thanks for the compliment. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

		Barnstardust Melodies
		For gazillions of tireless contributions, using the reference desk as a fulcrum for the encyclopedia's improvement. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't soliciting one, really I wasn't, but that's just beautiful. Thank you, Sluzzelin. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Jack ! I'm here in Sydney. It's my first time in your country, and I'm loving it. Cheers, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Jack, unfortunately this is my last day here. The reason I contacted you only now is that my hotel connection has been blocked by a certain Michael Billington until 2012 !! (that was the Observatory Hotel on Kent Street; very good indeed, in spite of Billington's block, and with a first-rate concierge service). I'm now in the Qantas lounge at the Kingford Smith Airport - they have a wireless internet facility here -, waiting for my flight to Queenstown, New Zealand, where I'll be for the next couple of days. I spent a whole week in Sydney, enough for a concert at the stunning Opera House (Haydn and Mahler with the Sydney Symphony under Gianluigi Gelmetti), the Taronga Zoo, some museums and art galleries, a Captain Cook whale watching cruise (a pod with four humpback whales was sighted), lunch at the revolving restaurant high up at the AMP Tower, a stroll around the Royal Botanical Gardens, a Shakuhachi (a type of Japanese flute) festival at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music and - last but not least - the redoubtable Bridge Climb on the splendid Sydney Harbour Bridge. Quite memorable ! I'll certainly come back to Australia someday. And from what I've seen here, you are right to be proud to be an Australian ! Regards, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Pity. Maybe I'll get across to Germany next year and we can meet up there. You've done a couple of more things than I have in Sydney, so congratulations on a fun-filled week. The shakuhachi concert - was Riley Lee (WHAT??? No article???) part of it? I've heard him lots of times (on radio, never live ... yet). Cheers, and give my regards to my Kiwi cousins. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, Jack, I've just arrived at the Queenstown Sofitel (no Wikipedia blocks here, thank goodness). As to the shakuhachi event, Riley Lee was the organiser of the whole thing and lectured the audience prior to the concert on the Japanese instrument, a bit of its history and the pieces we were going to hear (some of them world premières, Riley said). The concert itself was more interesting than touching, and ill-conceived in that all the works performed were very soft and quiet, in an adagio mode, with restricted dynamics and low in contrast, all of which made for a somewhat boring experience. But I don't regret it, and this shakuhachi festival was certainly a commendable initiative. Regards, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 11:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Jack—I'm a friend of Noetica and, indeed, HWV258 (is that it? Not an easily memorisable username). I think Noetica has mentioned you. TONY (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tony. Yes, he's also mentioned you to me, more than once. Thanks for getting in touch. I'm sure we have interests in common. I wasn't aware of HWV258, but now that I've checked him/her out, he/she may be interested in my very recent edit (about an hour ago) to George Frideric Handel's talk page about his date of birth. As might you. I'd be interested in your views. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's that edit that drew me to the JS Bach page! I've never been happy the way OS/NS was cluttered at the top, so anything that makes it neater, less instrusive, is good. TONY (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Duh!! Silly me. How could I fail to notice the sig on that page was the same as on this page? That's a sure sign I'm approaching (or have entered) a Wiki-manic phase. Time to slow down, get outside for a while and smell the roses. But that's for tomorrow; there's far too much work to be done here tonight. I have not yet actually solved all the problems with all our 2,000,000+ articles, and until I have achieved my glorious quest I shall not rest. Here I could quote Robert Frost, but that'd be way too predictable for my liking.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello. As far as posthumous nominations/awards in acting categories, the only nominee that you missed was Massimo Troisi. As far as posthumous nominations/awards in other categories, there are well over 50 or 60. The Academy does indeed maintain a list. Go to the following site: www.oscars.org. (It is dot ORG, not dot COM.) Click "Academy Awards Database". Click "Advanced Search". In this search box, simply put a check mark in the "posthumous" category ... and the database will return all posthumous nominations and awards (about 50-60 people, many with numerous nominations/awards apiece). You can also limit the search by any criteria you wish (for example, by award category, by year, by actor, by film, etc.) ... and the database will return only what satisfies your limited search criteria. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC))

The above posting is what I replied to you at the Talk Page on Academy Awards. By the way, I think it's great that you added all of this "posthumous" info into the various articles. It was actually on my "to do" list -- which I had not yet gotten around to. Let me know if you have luck navigating through the Academy's website database. It's fairly easy and self-explanatory. It has ALL the information you will ever need/want ... and it's a great resource! Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC))

Thanks, Joseph. That was exactly the resource I was looking for. I've got all the names now and I'm starting to think how best to include them. Maybe a separate article on "Posthumous Oscar Nominations and Wins" would be the way to go rather than cluttering up the existing articles. This could include extra detail such as their dates of death, whether they died during the shooting of the movie in question - or later, etc. This would actually be a much more readily usable resource for researchers than what AMPAS provides. And it could also include some extra names, of people who were alive at the time of nomination (who would not be classified by AMPAS as posthumous nominations) but died before the awards ceremony, etc. Quite how we'd go about collecting that extra detail ... ? Any ideas. -- JackofOz (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Jack. Thanks for the reply. As I mentioned, I had begun work on such a list quite some time ago ... and it was subsequently placed on my back burner. The recent hoopla over Heath Ledger's great performance (and likely posthumous Oscar nomination) as well as your recent postings prompted me to continue the article that I had started quite a while ago. I agree with you that it is probably best to begin a whole new article, as opposed to "cluttering up" the current articles. You can take a look at what I have so far ... check out my Sandbox Page here ---> User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page32. Now, please keep in mind that this is a very rough draft -- as you can see -- and it certainly by no means ready to be posted. Although, if I spend some time and effort, I can probably have it pretty cleaned up within 2-3 days tops. I included all of the information that I thought was particularly relevant ... and that I could aesthetically include in the article. I agree that the date of death is relevant and important. Also, I have always thought that it was important to research and include who accepted these awards on behalf of the absent winners. (I have always wondered about this bit of info, not only for deceased award winners, but for winners merely absent from the ceremony as well.) So, whatever info I can find about who accepted the awards on behalf of the deceased winner, I will include. As far as your last point ... I am not quite sure that I follow it? You mention that it would be good to include who died during the filming, etc. My thoughts are that the Academy Awards are, relatively speaking, on a "tight" time frame. That is, they only cover the span of one calendar year (at most!) --- not a whole heck of a lot of time. Thus, whenever there is a posthumous Oscar nomination and/or win, I always assumed that it goes without saying that the individual died either during the film or very shortly thereafter (due to the tight time frame of -- at the very most -- one year). So, perhaps I am missing something in your suggestion? Anyone who earns a posthumous nomination, by definition, died either during filming or shortly thereafter. I personally don't think it's particularly relevant (or interesting) if they "technically" died during filming or right after the filming called it a wrap. To me, it's all a distinction without a difference. To me, the point is that, by the time the ceremony rolls around, they are deceased. Furthermore, who would ever really "know" the technical ending date of filming / post editing, etc.? It seems like splitting hairs. The only exception to this general rule, I guess, is when (as occasionally happens), a film is not released for a long time after it wraps --- perhaps 1, 2, 3 years later. That does happen once in a blue moon. And, occasionally, you will see an actor who died in 1995 (for example) starring in a film released in 1998. James Dean comes to mind, as he was posthumously nominated in both 1955 and a full year later in 1956. Anyway ... those are my thoughts. Please respond and let me know your reactions. Also, please take a look at my proposed article ---> User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page32 ... and offer me any feedback, insights, suggestions, criticisms, etc. I'd really appreciate that. Remember that it is a work in progress and by no means done --- but this Sandbox Page will give you a pretty good idea of how the article is shaping up. Also, please reply at My Talk Page, not yours ... as I check mine regularly ... and don't check others' Talk Pages with any predictability. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

Hi. Thanks for your reply. Also, thanks for your great input and suggestions! I will respond to each of your above points.

• Yes, I see what you are saying -- and I agree -- about adding whatever details can be found about whether the actor died during filming, etc. If I find any details about this sort of thing, I would certainly add them in to the article, and I certainly think it would be both appropriate and interesting. One note, however: as you see, 99% of the people on the list are not actors. Thus, your suggestion -- while an excellent idea -- will be applicable only in those very rare cases of actors. Most of the posthumous nominations/awards are for non-actors and their deaths are certainly less splashed in newspapers and also less relevant to filming scenes of a movie per se. As far as actors, though -- yes, I agree that it's a great idea to add such information when we can find it.

• I’m not sure it’s applicable only to actors. People like George Gershwin, Jerome Kern and Walt Disney were extremely well-known in their fields. The song writer Frank Churchill, while less well known, committed suicide, which might interest some readers more than if he'd died in his sleep. There's also the case of Geoffrey Unsworth, the original cinematographer of Tess, who died half-way during filming. Ghislain Cloquet was brought in to finish the shooting. Both names were listed in the Oscar nomination, but interestingly only Cloquet was nominated for the César award (and won it) for the same film. Maybe the Césars don't allow for posthumous nominations. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• When you have a chance, take a look at my revised article here ---> User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page32. I incorporated many of your suggestions and ideas, so thanks! Please review the new revisions if you can and offer any other suggestions and feedback. Thank you.

• I listed all names in the "Last Name, First Name" format. It was inconsistent in the prior chart only because it was incomplete, and I had not yet gotten to the lower part of the list. With sorting available, I agree that sorting by Last Name makes more sense.

• You asked if there is any way to sort the table by more than 1 key ... so that we could see, say, all the posthumously nominated actors appearing together - not alphabetically but chronologically. The answer to that is "yes" ... but that is merely a function of how the computer program coding works and that has nothing to do with how you or I edit the article. In your example, you essentially want to sort two different columns -- the "Award" column (to yield all of the Best Actors) and the "Year" column (to yield chronology order). In order to do this, you simply sort the "Year" column first and then immediately sort the "Award" column. (Or you can do it vice versa, I think?). This has the effect of placing all the Years in sorted chrono order, so that all the Years are listed from old to new. And then, within the already sorted chart, it further sorts by Awards. So, now, all of the Best Actor awards are listed near each other in chrono order, all of the Best Sound awards are listed near each other in chrono order, all of the Best Cinematography awards are listed near each other in chrono order, etc. I believe that this is the effect you want ... please try it and let me know if this works for you. The gist of the matter is this. When you do a second sort, the sorting begins with the information already sorted from the first sort ... and it sorts (for a second time) the already sorted info. Thus, when you do a second sort, the chart does not revert to its original state and sort from there. The starting point for the second sort is the already sorted data from the first sort. Make sense? It's easier to see in practice than to explain in words. So, please fiddle around with the chart and the data and the sorting buttons and see if my explanation makes sense. Thanks.

• Thanks. That works for me. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• The death dates for Miller and Stankiewicz were unavailable, so I just typed in zeroes. I changed that. If you can find their death dates, please let me know. I have not yet looked elsewhere for that info.

• I'll try to dig out their dates of death. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• You stated that "The word Winner should perhaps be bolded, or the whole line put into a stand-out colour." I agree that the winners and the (mere) nominees needed to be differentiated more easily (than in my first chart). What I did was remove all the words "nominee" and merely left the words "winner" when appropriate under the "Status" column. Clearly, this easily differentiates the winners from the non-winners ... and it also "un clutters" the chart a bit. Let me know what you think of this solution? I agree that it was "hard" to differentiate winners and nominees in my first chart ... and I like my current solution. As far as color coding things, two thoughts: (1) I am not really one to add a lot of "colors" to charts -- it usually looks adolescent and distracting. (2) More importantly, however, a chart cannot sort by color codes. Thus, if winners were color coded in Green and nominees were color coded in Red, the chart would have no way of sorting the Green from the Red. And, thus, there would be no way in sorting winners from nominees. With colors, you can merely do a visual sort (your eyes easily distinguish green entries from red entries) ... but the computer cannot do a physical sorting of that data. That, I think, defeats the whole point.

• I was only suggesting that the rows containing the word “winner” be coloured. Not the others. But your change makes it very easy to spot the winners, so that’s fine. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• I definitely agree that the non-competitive awards (Honorary, Special, Scientific/Technical, etc.) needed to be extracted out of the "main" chart. They definitely are a horse of a different color ... and including them was like comparing apples and oranges. Thanks for the suggestion. As you see, I left one main chart for competitive Oscars and extracted a second chart below for Honorary and Special (non competitive) Oscars. I think this works much better. Thanks for the suggestion. For what it's worth ... my thinking was as follows. Let's use Audrey Hepburn as an example. In my definition, Hepburn "won" an Oscar, so I originally included her in the list. In my definition, "won" means that "she was awarded an Oscar by the AMPAS". In your definition, "won" means "somebody who beats out others in a competition and takes the prize." Thus, in your definition, Hepburn did not "win" an Oscar ... in that she didn't best others to receive the award. So, it is all semantics. In the end, for purposes of this article and this chart, your definition fits more appropriately. And is less misleading to readers. So, in the end, I extracted out the non-competitive winners from the main chart of competition winners. Thanks again!

• As far as Scientific/Technical Awards ... I am not 100% sure, but I am 99% sure ... so I will double check on this. But, I believe that they are treated as Honorary Awards. Thus, there is no process where one person wins from a list of 5 people. It's more like the Academy thinks that Person X did a great job in some scientific innovation, so the Academy gives them an award. As I say, I am 99% sure, but will double check on that. If so, we will agree that these type of awards would belong out of the main chart and in with the Honorary chart - yes?

• Yes. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• You mention that "highlights" (the first nom, the first win, the number of noms in each category, etc.) should be added. I agree 100% and I am also in the process of doing that as well. I have a math background, and I am always interested in these types of "highlights" or statistics, if you will. I definitely had planned to add them in and am currently working on that aspect as well. Thanks again for the suggestion.

• As an interim, I’ve added some of these details to List of Academy Award records‎. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• You bring up a very interesting "anomaly" (I guess it is?). When a person dies after the nomination, but before the award ... then they have a non-posthumous nomination with a posthumous award! Very odd! This very thought crossed my mind as I was typing a lot of the info for the article. I did not run across this anywhere, however ... where an individual had a regular (non posthumous) nomination ... but died before the award, and actually won the award, and thus had a posthumous award (deriving from a non-posthumous nomination). I don't know if (a) this never happened before? or (b) it's just not mentioned anywhere? But, I personally have not run across this yet. If indeed the situation exists, I agree with you -- yes, absolutely we should mention it in some Note or comment somewhere. As I think about this, there are only 12 or so competitive winners of posthumous awards. So, it should not be too hard to verify their date of death with the date of nomination. Thus, it can be verified whether these 12 cases of posthumous awards derived from posthumous or non-posthumous nominations. I will definitely look into this. And I do agree that it's very worthy of mention in the article. A secondary thought ... if indeed that circumstance does happen, then the person should not even be listed in the Main Chart ... should they? Or just list them with a special notation? What do you think? Thanks. Also, as I think more about this ... this would have to be a very rare case indeed. Because the window of opportunity is a very brief 2 months or so. An award usually follows a nomination by about 2 months (or so). So, the person would have to be nominated, die within the next 2 months, and also win. Seems like a rare (and improbable) event! Of course ... such rarity and improbability makes it that much more interesting and more worthy to add to the article! Awards are typically presented in March/April (perhaps very late February) ... and nominations are typically announced in late January to early February. Thus, an eventual award winner would have to have died in that small window of time between February to March/April. Do you know of this happening at all?

• I’m not aware of it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s happened at some stage. While technically they wouldn’t be posthumous nominees, they’re still sufficiently in the area of interest of this article for them to be listed. An explanation in the Comments column would certainly be appropriate. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• In your last point, you suggest removing the word "Best" from the Award titles. On this point, I don’t agree -- although I do see your point. They are all the "Best" of something, after we have removed the Honorary Awards, etc. I agree. And, in some of the more "esoteric" awards, your point is well taken. Calling the Best Original Song as merely Original Song is fine. But, I think it looks rather silly to call the award as "Picture" versus "Best Picture" ... or "Actor" versus "Best Actor". In cases of these major awards, the use of terms like Picture and Actor without the word "Best" seems very naked and incomplete. That's just my opinion. The Godfather won the Academy Award for Picture ... that seems odd and incongruous. "Best Picture" seems complete and appropriate. Same for Best Actor, Actress, etc. I agree with your point of the less important (more esoteric) awards ... Film Editing, Original Score, etc. Most significantly ... my opinion is that we need to have consistency throughout the article as a whole. This means either (a) to keep all of the awards as "Best Something" or (b) to remove the "Best Something" term from all of the awards. And, I favor the former. All in all, it's a mere 4 letters and the Chart is not lacking for space. Your thoughts?

• I’m happy with that. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

So, in closing ... thanks for all your feedback. Please reply to these points when you have a moment. And please take a look at my revisions ---> User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page32 ... (which incorporated many of your suggestions) and let me know what you think. Again, as a caveat, the revised article is certainly not complete ... and still a work in progress. A main flaw at this point is that I have not yet checked all the wiki links. I merely put brackets around the words ... so I am sure that the link for "Giant" or "Airport" (and others) will not direct to the correct wiki link. I have to go in and disambiguate these. Thanks! Please reply at My Talk Page. Thank you for your suggestions -- they were very helpful! Please offer more! (PS: I hope that Heath Ledger wins a posthumous nom and/or award! I think that, unfortunately, Brokeback Mountain was robbed of Best Picture in 2005.) (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC))

• Would you be happy for me to directly edit your list-in-progress, or would you prefer to keep it as your own project at this stage? I’m thinking about details such as correcting some of the links you refer to, but there could be other things.
• In fact, I’d say that it’s sufficiently good already to post it as a new article. With the talk about Heath Ledger, I’m sure interest in this subject will mount over the coming months, and it would be good to get in early with an article. Lots of other editors would then also have the opportunity to contribute to it. The other concern is that some other editor unknown to us may independently be working on just such an article, and I can’t imagine their version being better than yours. So better to get in early from that perspective, as well. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

My eye was caught by your talk page section on coincidences. It's nothing to do with wikipedia, but it did speak to something that bugs me. It concerns probability.

Say for example, each month you have the opportunity for 50 unlikely things to happen. Say the probability for each of these very unlikely events is 1 in 200. There is a 1 in 200 likelihood that any one of these events will happen. That's a 199 in 200 likelihood that it won't happen.

Say that the events are independent of each other. (Otherwise the maths gets too complicated for me.)

On an average, in each 4 month period, you now have 200 events each with a 1 in 200 chance of happening. In an average 4 month period, 1 of those 200 things will happen.

Maybe the numbers I used here are wrong, but the principal is surely that the really spooky bit would be if unlikely events - coincidences and the like - NEVER happened. There is nothing outside our day to day human understanding needed to explain the occasional coincidence, however.

I'm as happy as anyone to acknowledge there are events and dimensions and other things out there that you and I will never be programmed to understand. But good old serendipity ain't it.

Sorry to inflict one of my obsessions on you. Success.

Regards Charles01 (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jack. I noticed this subpage appearing in a couple of article categories, which is a self-ref boo-boo. If you still need this page, would you mind just nowiki'ing or otherwise disabling the categories? Cheers, Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 00:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Done. Thanks. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jack,

I was just wondering where you got the information about Lindsay Thompson as you wrote-

'In 1981 he was awarded the Douglas Wilkie Medal by the Anti-Football League for his efforts to ban football games on Sunday. In later life, Thompson enjoyed attending games at St James' Park in England to watch his beloved Newcastle United play.'

I'm sorry to say Jack, either you have your sources wrong or you were feeling imaginative as he didn't support Newcastle United, he supported the Richmond Tigers.

And also, Lindsay was the exact opposite of "trying to ban football on Sunday" as he was a mad football fan. He certainly never tried to ban it and he never recieved the Douglas Wilkie Medal.

This untrue information saddens me as he loved football and he would be most taken aback by what you wrote.

Yours sincerely,

Love.today (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Love.today. I’m afraid you’ve misread the edit history:

• The sentence about the Douglas Wilkie Medal was inserted by Wjackdunstan (no relation of mine) on 29 May 2006. That's well over 2 years ago, so if it was untrue I'm not sure what that says about the general level of reader interest in this article.

• The sentence about Newcastle United was inserted by anon user 203.110.145.13 at 11:13, 17 July 2008.

• My first edit was made at 12:52 on 17 July, and all it did was correct his date of death from 17 July to 16 July.

• The next edit, by anon user 203.110.145.13, rearranged the order of the sentences about his sporting interests.

• At 20:14 on 18 July I made an edit about the length of his ministerial career.

• At 10:07 on 19 July, anon user 124.180.149.92, removed the sentences about the Wilkie Medal and Newcastle United, leaving only the sentence about Richmond.

• At 12:35 on 21 July, Canley removed the sentence about Richmond.

So, it's clear that my involvement in the article has had nothing to do with his sporting interests. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry! I'm an amateur at this :) Thanks for letting me know. Love.today (talk) 06:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)