Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:33, 6 December 2010

HISTORY

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

All okay?

Hey Jack. I know you don't know me, but some of your contribs in the last few months have been sounding a bit unhappy and snappish, sometimes escalating a tiny thing into a major throwing of words. It's not like I've been stalking you, we just happen to read and contribute to many of the same pages. I've been used to thinking of you as the embodiment of cool unflappability, like the teacher nobody can wind up who calmly restores order, and it's been a bit disconcerting. Are you alright? 86.166.42.171 (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, whoever you are. Thanks for your concern. As far as I know I’m alright. But sometimes people can feel perfectly OK while actually going off the rails. They therefore need someone outside their box to feed back to them what’s going on, so that they can become aware of it and have the opportunity of doing something about it. The two incidents that come to mind are the very recent exchange with Eliko and the one regarding Steve Baker. And I had a few things to say about Baseball Bugs a little while back. Were there any others you had in mind? Re these three episodes, is it true that I “escalat a tiny thing into a major throwing of words”? Hmmm. I suppose, to some observers, that may be what I did. There’s always a spectrum of responses to any issue. The question is, though, were my words justified under those circumstances? I certainly thought so at the time. I’m not in the habit of going into print around here just to display my writing skills; there’s always something that has concerned or troubled me, and I feel secure enough about myself to express what’s on my mind. I have been advised in the past that I am not always the world’s most succinct writer. I accept that’s a discipline I sometimes struggle with. I’m probably struggling with it right now. The fact that I use a certain number of words to say what someone else might achieve in half as many, does not of itself necessarily indicate that I feel twice as strongly about the issue as they do; although, it might in a given case. Maybe I come across as rantescent some of the time. Maybe I’m doing that now. Maybe it’s simply the length of some of my responses, as opposed to their content, that invites such perceptions. Is this something I’m prepared to wear? I think I am. Many of the great writers and thinkers were misjudged and underestimated, but did it change their way of being one iota? Of course not. Now, I don’t put myself in that lofty company, so I give myself more room to change, and I have a considerable degree of willingness to change, when I am given good reason to do so. But I’m damned if I’ll be apologising for myself or changing my ways just to fit in with someone else’s pre-conceived idea of how to behave. Let me be myself, and I’ll do the same for them - as long as no line-crossing is going on, of course.

So, to return to the point, I again note your concern. "Disconcerting" is a fairly strong word. Is there anything going on? I do have certain private issues to deal with, as do we all, and I am overdue for a wikibreak and a work break, both of which are happening next week when I go away for a few days with my other half to Oblivion (later renamed Tasmania). The fact that I’m turning 60 while I'm away has been on my mind for some while, I must admit (in fact, the trip away was my way of avoiding having to deal with any special celebrations or surprise parties or whatever else that would rub it in). These milestones are funny things. I quite liked the idea of being 40, and 50 was rather grand in its way, but I absolutely HATED turning 30, and this difficult 60 thing has crept up on me without any warning whatsoever, until a few months ago. It really isn’t fair; the government should do something about it.

And with those words of a demented genius, I bid you good day. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jack, don't be scarred, it doesn't hurt. Mine was celebrated with the premiere of a 1 page a capella Halleluja (pdf on the web) by the composer of the Piccolo Quintet. Will you have time before your break to look at the Verdi Requiem (concerts next weekend, of the quintet also, so I can't hear it this time)? Then have a great time in oblivion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. I have about 30 minutes before I have to log off, so I'll have a very quick peek at the Requiem. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope you enjoy your holiday, as you thoroughly deserve it. I hope you return to the project refreshed and happy. I don't expect you to remember me: it's a long time since I used my log-in, due to a stalking incident. When the stalking didn't really go away, just under control, I didn't feel able to return to my account or create a new one. So now I edit anon and, given my service provider routinely switches my IP, I don't build up enough recognisable history for my stalker to notice. I try to keep article-space edits in different sessions to reference desk edits, specifically so this person won't be able to profile me any more. This is the only way I could see to return to the project safely. So I don't expect you to recognise me :( I do expect you to remember when there has been previous discussion on a word being innocent of your connotations in another dialect ;) Happy birthday, and have fun. 86.166.42.171 (talk) 11:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I too wish you a happy holiday, and look forward to seeing the papyrus font in December again (as it happens, I too will be traveling the day after tomorrow, but, alas, will be over 16,000 km away from you). Enjoy your well-deserved break! ---Sluzzelin talk 20:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Sluzzelin. I don't even know what the hell I'm doing on here in my so-called wikibreak, but there you have it. I'll get off soon, I promise.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Rachmaninov and piano rolls

G'day from the other side of the world, from someone who was once married to an Australian. They get everywhere, don't they! I've re-edited one of the sentences about Rachmaninov and piano rolls. I wrote the text originally, using the word "perforated", and you changed it to "recorded". The trouble is, the rolls made by Aeolian from 1900 onwards were not recorded, not in the way we would mean it nowadays. Later on, of course, recorded rolls became very popular, with Rachmaninov recording for Ampico, and many other pianists recording Rachmaninov's music on other systems. But at the time Rachmaninov himself had a pianola at Ivanovka, the rolls were transcribed from the sheet music by musical editors. Now you could argue that the recording angel simply writes names in a book while those less sinful than ourselves enter through the Pearly Gates, but I think people will imagine hands on keyboards, and it really wasn't like that.

I've altered your word "recorded" to "published", because that allows for both types of roll. Thought I would let you know.

All the best,

Pianola (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

RefTalk

Please don't lead CA3 on to continue commenting on his issue with another editor. I just warned him a day or so ago to let it drop. Franamax (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Translated that means you are "encouraged" to choose the "be quiet" option. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Jack is free to talk about whatever he wants so long as he is not displaying an ongoing pattern of disruption and he knows it. He also knows that if he has a question about what I say to him, he can ask me to clarify it and doesn't need assistance from you. It is your behaviour that is under scrutiny here Cuddlyable3, not JackOfOz's. Franamax (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of sonata categories

Hi. The Sonata categories that you just removed from many articles (e.g. here) were placed quite deliberately against the varying composer articles. The reason being that in many cases, composers are minor-enough to not have a separate page listing their works. Therefore, there is no alternative but to place the sonata categories against the page that lists the actual works. This is something that would have been nice if you discussed with me before wholesale change (I'm not that impressed that you would assume that no thought went into the addition of the categories). You have written (in a number of edit comments) "cat is for a specific musical work, not for its composer"—could you please point me to that definition at WP? Could you please undo your changes until either another solution is found, or discussion takes place? Thanks.  GFHandel.   22:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Well, I could just as well ask you why you didn't discuss these categorisations before making them. Why is it that I have to assume your entries were thoughtful and appropriate, but my removal of them is consigned to something lower on the scale?

Look, it's really simple. Just because there's no article on any of Georg Ludwig Schmidthaus's 378 Oboe Sonatas or 157 Flute Sonatas does not make it OK to categorise Schmidthaus as an "Oboe Sonata" or a "Flute Sonata". He personally was not an Oboe Sonata, or a Flute Sonata, or a Violin Sonata, or a symphony, concerto, song cycle, requiem or any other kind of musical work. He was the composer of such works. Your reasoning would make it OK to categorise an article on a musical work by an obscure composer who lacks an article himself as something like "German composer", "Jewish musician", "Deaths in 1736", etc etc. Wrong again. Works are not their composers, and composers are not their works. They are separate things and must be categorised separately.

As for Therefore, there is no alternative but to place the sonata categories against the page that lists the actual works, there most certainly IS an alternative - write a stub on the work itself. You are NOT forced to miscategorise articles, so please do not plead lack of choice. Thank you. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(As you are aware) I'm not required to discuss before adding in an attempt to improve WP for the readers, however it would be polite for you to discuss before removing the work of others (especially when things are not black-and-white—as I'm sure you're now realising).

The categorisations I made can also be seen as interim measures before list pages and/or stub articles get created (if they do). I believe you have made the mistake of assuming that WP is a finished work (remember that there is no deadline at WP). My additions made it possible for others to find the sonatas, and to begin to write stubs—in their own subject areas (I've written dozens in mine, thank you very much).

You are also going to have to face intense questions of notability if you believe that articles such as Sonata for oboe and piano (Hollingsworth) should be created (for Heaven's sake Hollingsworth doesn't even have a separate article listing his works—let alone articles on his individual works).

The changes I made (two weeks ago) were not objected to by anyone else, so your interpretation of some sort of category definition needs wider testing. Where would be the appropriate place to bring this to a wider audience? How about Misplaced Pages talk:Categorization? Or should it be also be on a musical page? I'm more than happy to abide by consensus decision—are you?

 GFHandel.   23:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

A few points.

• Yes, we're all encouraged to be Bold, and good on you for being so. But that doesn't mean that everything done in the name of boldness deserves to remain intact.
• As for when discussions should take place, there's no rule that says they can take place only after an edit is made. I have often sought comments, consensus etc before proceeding to make potentially controversial edits. And you must be aware that these categorisations of yours are controversial, because where else in Misplaced Pages do we see composers categorised as if they were musical works? There are no articles on the 12 String Symphonies by Felix Mendelssohn, but is Category:Compositions for string orchestra applied to either his own article or to List of compositions by Felix Mendelssohn? No, and neither should it be.
• I am fully aware that Misplaced Pages is not a finished work. I've spent a large chunk of the last 7 years helping to make it less unfinished than it was, but I know the work will never end. I don't know where this debating point comes from, or even why it's relevant to our discussion. The fact that the project is not finished is no argument for miscategorising articles, not even on an interim basis.
• Lack of objections by anybody else is no argument for anything. It does not mean you've got a consensus. The best you can claim is an implied consensus, but only up till the point when others object to what you've done. If you're lucky, others will explicitly agree with your edits. But till now, these edits have been treated with complete indifference, which could be for a number of reasons, including lack of will/energy given the large number of articles affected. Had it been only 1 or 2 articles, I think you'd have had some negative feedback already; but when it's a dozen or more, many editors will just throw up their hands and let someone else take the running. Well, I'm your man for that.
• I'd be more than happy to canvass this issue at Misplaced Pages talk:Categorization. No need to split the discussion over more than one place.
• There's no need for the "Are you?" thing. We're all subject to consensus here. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Needless to say, I believe that you are not willing to be flexible enough to see my point (on an issue that is not black-and-white). Hopefully other points-of-view (and flexibility) will come from other editors here.  GFHandel.   02:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

So, anyone who disagrees with you is now automatically inflexible? That's inflexibility personified, if I may say so. I understand perfectly why you've made these edits; I just disagree it's the right way to go, that's all. I've said that I'm perfectly happy to go to WTC and let the general consensus, whatever it is, guide the final outcome. If that's not being flexible, I don't know what would be. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks for your help

Hello Jack ~ thanks for your help with the article Alexei Lubimov. You made fixing it look easy! Kind regards ~ 76.102.82.86 (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Good to see you back to your chipper self

:-)

Chipper, that's nothing. Next week, I'll be be chippest. I feel terribly sorry for people who are merely chip.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK hook too long

Hi, your DYK hook for Wuthering Heights (Herrmann) was too long. I've suggested an alternate, but feel free to add another alternate if you're not satisfied with my version. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Henry Krips

• Henry Krips and Henry Joseph Krips: On 28 May 2008, I created an article that I called Henry Krips. It was about an Austrian-born conductor who moved to Australia and died here in 1987. The article had numerous edits since I created it. On 24 November just gone, User:Jordancperry decided to create an article about another Henry Krips, a living Professor of Cultural Studies at Claremont Graduate University. He renamed the conductor’s article Henry Joseph Krips and misappropriated Henry Krips for the professor’s article – see . All very poor form. But it get worse, because the edit history of my guy, the conductor, is now attached to the professor’s article! Can a kind soul somehow fix this mess up? And tell jordan how things are done around here. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Done. I have put a hatlink in page Henry Krips. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, Anthony. I've since moved Henry Joseph Krips to Henry Krips (conductor), and Henry Krips to Henry Krips (scholar). There are now hatnotes on both articles. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Latsabidze

Hey JackofOz. Great to hear that you are an advanced pianist! Would you please give us any suggestions for this article: Latsabidze Any advices would be higly appreciative! Thanks! Sausa11 (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Sausa

Dear Jackofoz, thanks for all your contributions in my article. I just want to let you know that you can continue editing this article now here Thanks again! Sausa11 (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Australian_Labor_Party#Position on titles, knighthoods etc

Anyone? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's my understanding that only the University of Woolloomooloo has carried out research on this topic. Per that research, it would appear that even the most staunch republican has a lingering affection for the "Fount of honour", Our Liz --Shirt58 (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

re: Henry Krips

While I appreciate your assistance, your approach was aggressive and highly unprofessional. My apologies for any inconvenience by way of my mistake, but I would suggest you be mindful that due to Misplaced Pages's model hiccups do happen. I will take more care in future additions, but recommend that you take greater care in the way you address individuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordancperry (talk • contribs) 23:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite right. One should never write while angry. I was very angry, which should be even more reason to put one's pen down and go and have sex or something, not a reason to launch into a bitter tirade. My unreserved apologies.

I hope we can work together more productively from now on. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Elgar Violin Concerto

I've been working on this article and have added several things about Billy Reed, on whom you are our resident authority. If you have a moment, perhaps you'd run an eye over it. Tim riley (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh pshaw - but thanks anyway. It looks fine to me, Tim.

The Ysaye stuff was new to me. You just never know what you're gonna find on Misplaced Pages.

Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution

Jack,

Than you for contributing to the article I began Culture of Oregon. I felt that Oregon needed an article detailing their culture despite some oppostion. Best wishes! Bruinfan12 (talk) 07:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)