User talk:JackofOz/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Happy Dvēseļu diena!

Hello, JackofOz - here's wishing you a very happy Dvēseļu diena! Love, Yeanold Viskersenn 15:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Yeanold Viskersenn. And thank you for (a) the very first Latvian greeting I have ever received, and (b) the very first time anybody has ever wished me well for All Souls Day. I do appreciate it, although to be honest I'm not sure why I do. If I were of morbid disposition I might see it as an omen of impending death, and picture you dressed in a long black cloak with a hood and a scythe. But your photo looks nothing like that, so I'm confident you're not Death. But it's a reminder that death is never far away. Today would have been my ex-father-in-law's birthday. Yesterday would have been my paternal grandfather's birthday. Next week would have been my maternal grandfather's birthday. But they're all dead now. And I'm confident I'll make it to my own birthday the week after that. One of these years I won't get there, of course - but it's sure as hell not going to be this year. I have far, far too much writing to do before then, on Wikipedia and elsewhere. It only remains for me to wonder (c) why you chose me to be the recipient of this message. Random act of kindness, perhaps? In any case, you've done your bit for the cause of world peace today, so I give you the rest of the day off to go and have some fun and spread some more love. Many good wishes. -- JackofOz 20:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply in the Miscellaneous reference desk

I have replied to your comment "And you know this ... how?" in the Miscellaneous reference desk. --Taraborn 20:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

funny!

Your edit of The Sleeping Beauty (ballet) made me laugh hysterically - but warmly :) - "no need to specify that St P is in Russia (it would hardly have been in Florida)."

Once, @ a performance of "The Nutcracker" in Seattle, I was sitting in front of an elderly couple. They were going through the program during intermission, and the man said to the woman, Oh, the ballet was first given in St. Petersburg!" and the woman said, "Yes, they must love such a ballet in Florida, where its always so warm."

Anyway, thanks for the hearty laugh........

--Mrlopez2681 05:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

GG

• Good section on patronage to give it context and I like the League of Rights cite - they were hardly being complimentary :-) : Governor General Bill Hayden has been praised for his honesty in declining to become the Chief Scout of the Scout Association of Australia because, as an atheist, he could not swear loyalty to God. But the Governor General has found it possible to swear allegiance to a Monarchy in which he has said on a number of occasions he does not believe. For the sake of Australia, it is to be hoped that His Excellency matures as he serves in the most distinguished position in the nation. --Golden Wattle ^talk 00:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It May Be Too Late Already

I read the following on someone else's talk page: "Hey I don't answer this in the super smash article cause that go off the topic, but may they don't put kirby in the demo to hide his new gameplay. (If you wonder why I put "What's down" is What's up just with down instead of up")". The problem is that I believe I understand it. Very worrying, that. Bielle 07:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I had the advantage of some context. For example (and I know you are breathless in anticipation of a translation), "super smash" is a short form for the name of a new Mario Brothers game to come out in February. (I wish my grandsons were old enough to be impressed that I know this. I am relying on you, instead. Small joke.) Kirby is an important character in the game and nothing about his new powers has yet appeared in any of the preview demos. The writer is positing that the reason for this lack of scuttlebutt is that that part of the game will be a part of the surprise at the launch. (The embarrasing part is, for those who speak that language with ease, he explained his bit in just over a line. It took me over five.) The second part is the best. I think he means that he is bored with asking "What's up?" and has made this huge creative leap to replace it with "What's down?" instead. Is it in such a pool that we search for our Edward de Vere, amidst the squealing of pigs and the rattling of spears. Oh dear; I am losing myself. Time for bed, and thanks for indulging me for a few moments. Bielle 08:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Argh

I was reverting some vandalism to your page and VP had one of it's little hiccups and warned the very same page it was removing the vandalism from...so I un-VP'd it and removed the vandalism manually. Dreadstar † 08:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi I Need tons of Help Please

--Roxmysoxo 22:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Roxmysoxo 22:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Hi can you Help me on almost everything PLEASE I'M BEGGING You look like you have had tons of experince. Your the best one I know yet. You can visit my page and do what ever to help ;)

Almost everythhing can you do a make over to my page--Roxmysoxo 22:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Help Me get my mind jogging please or at least recemond me to your friends--Roxmysoxo 22:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Monarchy articles

JackofOz- I see you've been involved in the editing of Australian monarchy and on its talk page. There's presently a poll going on regarding the format of the titles for all Commonwealth realm monarchy articles. If you'd like to register an opinion, please do so here. Cheers. --G2bambino (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Damned nonsense!

Which Hans Richter is responsible for the marvellous quotation on your userpage? DuncanHill (talk) 08:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I appear to have returned! I shall have to add Richter's quote to my much-loved A. L. Rowse - "Nobody ever understands anything".DuncanHill (talk) 08:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Though as I see you are an Oxfordian, I'm not sure you will appreciate the appearence of Rowse on your talk page! DuncanHill (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Knighthoods

I created a note about the ALP and knighthoods and put it on Northcott's discussion page. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Good wishes

I wish you joy of this election result. Also, if you aren't able to see "Bladerunner", listening to the soundtrack is worthwhile by itself.Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd

Hello JackoOz, just letting ya know I'm no longer gonna argue for 'PM-designate' on the Australian articles and I'm not sore that my opinon was in the minority. I'm hoping my country abolishes its Senate (which might happen if the Liberal Senators block reform attempts), but I'm not getting my hopes up. GoodDay (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks JackoOz. GoodDay (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I read up on Australia's 1975 Constitutional crises, very exciting. It makes my country's King-Byng Thing seem tamed. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, what a period. You could not imagine what it was like to live through that. Every day we were left wondering "What on earth is going to happen next?". The culmination, Kerr's dismissal of Whitlam on 11 November and the immediate aftermath, was actually far more exciting (if that's the right word - dramatic and unbelievably shocking would be better) than any report of it I've ever read conveys. I lived in Canberra at the time, we all heard that Gough had been sacked, through the grapevine at work even before we could get to a radio, and I was only 15 minutes walk from Parliament House. I have few regrets in my life (not because I haven't made mistakes - colossal, stupendous mistakes; I just don't generally believe in regretting what can't be changed) - but one of them is that I didn't take a sickie that Tuesday afternoon (or just say, I'm going to be where the action is, like it or not) and go down to Parliament House and be a part of history happening, rather than waiting till I got home and seeing it on TV. If you can get your hands on the DVD "The Dismissal" (1983), I recommend it. It's a dramatisation of the main events. I haven't seen it for years now, and only dimly remember what some of the acting was like, so it may have dated a little, but it was compulsory viewing when it was made and generally very well received, and is still a good seller for the ABC. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi Jack, sorry for that stuff-up for two reasons - first, because I'm often correcting other peoples edits for changing things in advance or when it is speculation; and second, because as an admin I should be trusted to not do such things! However I do note that the ABC site is not listed Bennelong as an in-doubt seat http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/results/seatsindoubt.htm. Are we assuming all seats are in-doubt until counting is final? -- Chuq (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Chuq. I think we have to wait till at least McKew claims victory and Howard concedes defeat. As of half an hour ago (ABC Radio 1pm news), McKew was still holding off claiming. Howard sort-of half conceded on Saturday night but he hasn't formally conceded yet, and it wouldn't be in his nature to do so until there's no possible hope any more. Afaik, there are still 5000 postal votes to count, which are expected to favour him, but let's wait and see. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Bus drivers

Bus drivers may take exception to that comment re KR falling under one. Gnangarra 05:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

He he. No offence intended to bus drivers - or KR for that matter. It's great there's so much interest out there in updating our articles, but they just have to curb their enthusiasm until inevitable events inevitably occur. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wagga

Loved the edit summary gracefully dealing with Victoria B :-) --Matilda ^talk 00:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Abbott

See email because I won't repeat the words here - but I really think that that was the crux of the court case and we shouldn't repeat the allegation. Am OK if that bit is left out. Regards Matilda ^talk 00:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Greetings

Rianon Burnet has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I hope that your day goes by wonderfully.....

I have a question about the Lord Byron page, I've noticed that not all of his poetry wasn't named on there, would it be ok if I added them. I have his Treasure thoughts book from Lord Byron and would love to share it...... Should I also take a picture of it and place it on the page next to the book???? Thank you and hope you get back to me soon........ Tomorrow I can get the picture up... But I can put the poems up today,, only if I get the word..... Thank you and God Bless..... Rianon Burnet 14:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather tell you this

Hi, Jack. I was having second thoughts on my answer to your question about this phrase. Maybe it's too strong to say that rather cannot be analyzed in such a fixed expression (or idiom, as you said). I guess you can safely say it's an adverb, but the problem is: if it's an adverb, it must modify an adjetive or a verb.

Well, forget about adjetives. Alas, is rather modifying would? I don't think so, and I don't agree with those that have thought of would as a stand-alone verb. That makes no sense to me.

I posit two possible answers. The first, closer to my previous answer, is that I'd rather works as an idiom, used in a sentence like

• I would rather you answer this question correctly.

in a parallel fashion to

• I would rather answer this.

If you somewhat force the syntactic analysis of the first sentence, I guess you could say that rather is an adverb, somehow modifying the verb answer.

The second answer I conceive is to think of an ellipsis, as

• I would rather [prefer that] you answer this question correctly.

In this case, rather obviously affects the verb prefer.

Greetings, Pallida  Mors 03:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Rudd

Please come back. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're nothing but a blatant homophonophobe

That's so good. I shall be earnestly twisting conversations for the rest of my life, trying to find somewhere to use it. Thank you for tonight's laugh. Bielle (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

B. c.

Hi. It seems to be gone now. It wasn't a joke. It was a pointed reply to the rephrased question. I forget who, but someone removed a question that was asking for a diagnosis. Someone else saw fit to post a rephrased version of the question, and I answered the rephrased question in a way I hoped would make it clear that the question had indeed been soliciting a diagnosis. Bladder cancer can cause the symptom described, and it had to be undiagnosed to satisfy the stipulation imposed in the rephrased version. I was prepared to offer further diagnoses if pressed: keloids subsequent to gonnorheal scarring, multiple sclerosis, and micro-stroke, for example.

I had hoped my import would be clear, but it looks like I failed in that. Feel free to put anything you like on my talk page whenever you want, by the way. I say that in all sincerity and only to eliminate any shred of doubt that might be caused by the occasional clumsiness of my interpersonal communications. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries, particularly now that it's gone anyway. What I read when I logged on was this:

• Questioner - OK, let's phrase it obviously as a physiology question. Multiple people have observed that if they refrain from urinating for too long, it is a bit difficult to start the flow going. These are healthy people with no relevant medical problems. What is the physiological basis for this delay?
• You - Undiagnosed bladder cancer.

I didn't see the original medical question, but the rephrasing as a general physiological question seemed fine to me. He made the point that he was talking about people with no relevant medical problems; so, replying with the name of a medical condition - any medical condition - seemed off the track for starters. But choosing "undiagnosed bladder cancer" in particular seemed to be going too far. If I went to the doctor complaining of being unable to get the flow going, the first thing he'd say would most definitely not be "I think you must have bladder cancer". Mentioning that condition in this context means that casual readers could pass by, read it, and immediately think (because the Ref Desk is world-renowned for its authority) they might have bladder cancer. Do you see the danger? I hope I'm not making too much out of this, but I thought it best to get this off my chest. Cheers -- JackofOz (talk) 05:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Right. Like I said, feel free. It just pissed me off to see somebody undermine the process by overriding the removal. That invites an edit war (and incidentally leads to the sort of confusion it caused here). It also pissed me off to see meta-discussion on the desk itself. That stuff should happen on the talk page.

About the minor point that "He made the point that he was talking about people with no relevant medical problems", how does he know that they have no relevant medical problems? Were these people just moments before given a complete physical by a team of infallible doctors from the Infallible Medical Institute of Cannotbewrong, Queensland? I hope you see my point. And I do see the dangers. That is the very reason that the question had to be deleted in the first place. I was being pointy, but only to call attention to pointiness by a revered admin who should have known better. Furthermore, bladder cancer can cause the symptom described. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Jack. For context, the original question was posted here: [1].

This is something that I have happen a lot (no smart comments here! lol): I'm driving home and part way there, I gotta pee. Of course I have to hold it. The closer I get to home, the worse I have to pee. By the time I get inside and up to the toilet, I can barely hold it any longer. However, once I am in position to actually have a pee . . . it takes forever to begin! Any suggestions (physiologically) as to why this might be?

It was a clear and obvious request for a diagnosis, and Jpgordon was deliberately flouting the rule with his rephrasing: [2]. (Indeed, he says as much in his post.) He posts an essentially identical question to the one removed, posts it in the same place as the previous question so that the OP can find it, and seeks the same diagnosis. (Actually, it's a more dangerous question, because it assumes that the person has no medical problems and guides responses in that direction.) His rephrasing is such that people who haven't seen the original question (like you) might assume that it's an innocent request for information rather than a request for a diagnosis of a problem.

The rest, you've seen. Milkbreath's concern was understandable in context; his response was highly inappropriate and I've cautioned him to do nothing of the sort again. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, JackofOz. Just to be thorough, I thought I'd mention that TenofAllTrades made me see the light, and I've acknowledged my error to him on his talk page. I wasn't thinking about the effect my reply might have on the poor OP. Listen, I'm currently taking Chantix to try to quit smoking. Does Chantix cause lapses in judgement, do you know? --Milkbreath (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you inviting a medical or pharmacological opinion here? Best you speak to your relevant professional about possible side-effects, to see whether the drug in question is contra-indicated. If there are no known such side-effects, a visit to a psychiatrist might be something to think about.  :) My question to you is, does Chantix work? I'm a smoker too, although I must confess I don't actually want to give up. That's a shockingly incorrect admission to make these days, I know, but it's the truth. Can I afford to smoke? No way. Does it do me any good? Of course not. Does it do harm? Undoubtedly. But is it utterly romantic? Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. The image of the bohemian writer ensconced in his country retreat away from the rat race, by a lake, tapping away all day long and into the small hours of the morning while enveloped in swirls of blue-grey cigarette smoke, drinking innumerable cups of tea/coffee/whisky, with only his beloved partner for company when he emerges from his cocoon - boy, that image is priceless. I have that as a reality, and I aim to keep it. But Hollywood has a hell of a lot to answer for, for putting it in my brain in the first place. I think particularly of Gregory Peck playing F Scott Fitzgerald in Beloved Infidel. Enough of my ramblings. Go in peace, Milkbreath. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"pro tem."

I'll not bother to requibble your substitution of 'interim' in the Janine Haines article. However, it's rather high-handed to justify such with pro tem is a US Senate term that has a defined meaning - it's not used in Australia. My Oxford Authors' and Printers' Dictionary (1965) at page 327 gives

pro tempore (Lat.), for the time being; abbr. pro tem. or p.t.

I've been a trade reader, editor and writer in Australia since 1957 and have found the OAAPD to be the authority of choice in newspapers, typesetters and publishing houses (though not necessarily for all vernacular spellings). So, IMHO, it's equally OK for Australian subjects in Wikipedia. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the feedback. My motivation in changing the wording was that in the U.S. there's a President pro tempore of the Senate. Despite the name, the holder of that office is effectively in the position indefinitely as long as his or her party remains the majority party. Our readers come from all over the world, and the U.S. term is fairly well known. I saw some scope for confusion, so I thought it best to use a word that couldn't be misinterpreted. I don't dispute that "pro tem" means what the OAAPD says it means, but I can't say I've ever seen an Australian media outlet use this terminology in relation to a short-term interim appointment such as Janine Haines'. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Like many latinisms, it's not common in Oz mass media. Anyway, I now see there's both a Wiktionary entry and a Wikipedia one on it. Both of them omit the necessary full point after 'tem'! Cheers Bjenks (talk) 06:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Chantix

We're steering perilously close to chat, here, but I think we could sell the jury on its being rapprochement.

What Chantix does is make it so that you get no nicotine rush from smoking. It's like the smoker's equivalent of chemical castration in the equally reviled sex offender. Once you start taking it, the pleasure of smoking is gone, and the complex of behaviors that surround the habit are revealed—the way you hold your cigarette just so, that special face you make when you thoughtfully take a drag, the deftness with which you whip one out and light it when inspiration strikes, the million-and-one ways in which it makes life bearable.

You are supposed to keep smoking for the first week. I think the principle is that you are creating bad associations with smoking during that time, because it tastes pretty rank when there's no love in it. The whole course lasts three months, and I'm in the second week. I'm taking it as it comes. So far, so good. Ask me again come spring (that's fall, to you).

I'm just like you except I live in the suburbs and I write in a basement. I didn't want to quit, either. My only vice now is coffee, and that by itself won't get you into the tortured artist's club. I decided to quit because it was costing me about $300 a month, and I refuse to hand that much money to strangers who probably wouldn't like me any more than I would like them, and all for a handful of chopped-up weeds. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Touche

I knew there were acting PMs from Queensland in between Fisher and Rudd. Somehow that knowledge just didn't get communicated to the part of my brain fixing up the article :P BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, no actually. Fadden and Forde might be described as "interim", "short-term" or "caretaker" Prime Ministers, but they were certainly not "acting" in a formal sense. They were both just as much Prime Minister as Bob Menzies was, albeit in office for a considerably shorter period. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe my edit should remain. I believe that it is important to note that he is the second only representative from Queensland to have won an election to BECOME Prime Minister NOT to win the Prime Ministership. It should also be mentioned that his landslide win was due to a huge win from Queensland which is traditionally a conservative state. Jobey (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jobey. I know what you're trying to achieve and I generally support the inclusion of something along these lines, as long as we can get the wording right. We can't even hint at suggesting that PMs are directly elected - and I think you've tried to avoid that - otherwise the wikibrigade will quickly make their views known. Your last edit was: He has become the second only Prime Minister from Queensland to have won office since Andrew Fisher in 1910, 1914. Another editor changed "second" to "first", which is correct since we wouldn't take Fisher into account if we're counting "since Fisher". If we were talking about all Queenslanders who've received a popular mandate as PM, then Rudd would be the second.

My concern is that by telling only this story, it tends to mask the facts that (a) there have been 4 Queensland PMs, not only 2, and (b) Fisher's first term was not a popular mandate either. People will see the name "Fisher" and assume that he only ever came to office following an election, which is not the case. Rather than just this sentence, I'd prefer to have a brief paragraph along the lines of:

Kevin Rudd is only the second Queenslander to receive a popular mandate as Prime Minister, the first being Andrew Fisher in 1910 (although Fisher had first become Prime Minister in 1908 when the Alfred Deakin government resigned). Arthur Fadden (1941) and Frank Forde (1945) were also Prime Ministers for short periods, but in neither case did they have a popular mandate - in Fadden's case the incumbent Robert Menzies resigned; in Forde's case the incumbent John Curtin died.

Any suggestions for improvement welcome. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Your suggestion is perfect. Could you also add something like "...his landslide win was due to a huge win from Queensland which is traditionally a conservative state (see Joh Bjelke-Petersen). Queensland had been a strong support base for ONE NATION, a far-right party." I believe this fact is importatnt too. Once again, thanks for your suggested paragraph. Jobey (talk) 09:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sold on that extra stuff. I think I'll reinsert the agreed words, and if you want to add other words, that's your call. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I am in agreement with your paragraph and it's location. But I have this feeling that maybe something short and sweet might suffice like: "Kevin Rudd is only the second Queenslander to lead his party to a federal election victory, and the first Prime Minister since WWII not to come from either New South Wales or Victoria." It is just a thought. And like I said before, I am happy with your paragraph. Thanks.Jobey (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I forgot to mention that I copied this over to Kevin Rudd's talk page for others to have a say about it. You can follow events over there. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What happens if there is a tie?

G'day Jack, I just want to thank you again for clearing up the issue of when an MP officially becomes an MP. Thanks to you we can now, with absolute certainty, add the start and end dates of all MP's terms of office to all the relevant infoboxes and succession boxes, as well of course in the body of the appropriate articles. I also would like to back Brendan's suggestion of outlining this on the Elections in Australia article and wherever else is appropriate.

However, I now come to you with another query. It is in regards to the situation with Fran Bailey and Rob Mitchell in the Victorian seat of McEwen, where it was announced today that Bailey has fought back from 7 votes behind to now being 12 votes ahead. What would happen in the situation where the vote was declared a tie? Are there any provisions in any legislation that would cover this situation? Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Ian. Thanks for the acknowledgment. The tied-vote question: as far as I know it’s never happened federally, although it came within one vote of a tie in 1919 in Ballarat. I'm sure the law on this has varied over the years, but currently, what happens in the event of a tie is covered under section 274 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act [3]:

• (9A) If, in the final count, 2 or more candidates have an equal number of votes, the Divisional Returning Officer shall make a fresh scrutiny of the votes scrutinised under subsection (7) and a fresh scrutiny of all declaration ballot-papers rejected at the preliminary scrutiny.
• (9B) If, after the fresh scrutinies referred to in subsection (9A), a candidate has received an absolute majority of votes, that candidate shall be elected.
• (9C) If, after the fresh scrutinies referred to in subsection (9A), 2 or more candidates have an equal number of votes, the Divisional Returning Officer shall give to the Electoral Commissioner written notice that the election cannot be decided.

This all happens after the distribution of preferences, and we’re now into the “final count”. I interpret this to mean that if it appears that more than one candidate has the same number of votes, the votes have to be recounted. It’s theoretically possible for 3 or more candidates to finish in a dead-heat, and the law allows for such a possibility. If, after the recount, there’s still a dead-heat between at least 2 of the candidates, the election cannot be decided. I presume there’d have to be a by-election in that event. (Not at all sure where any further recount at the request of the parties fits in, if anywhere, but you can be sure their scrutineers would be working overtime at the last allowable recount.) What happens if the dead-heat happens again? And again? Now we’re getting into infinitesimally small possibilities, but it's a fascinating scenario to ponder. Maybe someone should write a novel about a community so utterly evenly polarised and obdurate that nobody ever changes their votes, and they keep on having dead heats. That introduces a motive for people to start getting killed off, like in Midsummer Murders. What fun! Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

MPs..again

Jack, I saw your contribs on the election pages about MPs terms. Pardon me if I'm ploughing over old furrows, but the volume of material on this is too much for me to study in detail in the time I have available. I'd like to just put my thought on this here for your consideration:

It seems that there are two tracks in this issue; the administrative arrangements that are in convention or Acts and Regs to pay entitlements, allow caretaker activity etc. versus the actual constitutional definition of an MP. I've always understood that the act of making the oath of allegiance was the point of admittance to the Parliament and that terms ended at the moment that the proclamation of dissolution of the Parliament took effect. I.e., you aren't an MP until you've sworn and signed that oath on the floor of the House/Senate and your term expires when the House is dissolved or, for the Senate, except in the case of double dissolutions (or for Territorial Senators), at midnight on the relevant 30th day of June.

Anyhow, I greatly admire your efforts on this site. I wish you health and good fortune in the new year. Retarius | Talk 03:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Retarius, and thanks for the compliment.

You're right that an MP/Senator can't take part in proceedings of the House/Senate until they make an oath or affirmation. However, that's not what makes them an MP/Senator. What makes them an MP/Senator is being "chosen by the people". I can only refer you again to [4]:

• A Member’s status as a Member does not depend on the meeting of the Parliament, nor on the Member taking his or her seat or making the oath or affirmation. A Member is technically regarded as a Member from the day of election — that is, when he or she is, in the words of the Constitution, ‘chosen by the people’.

The oath/affirmation – while being a constitutional requirement - is essentially a procedural matter. Refusal to make either an oath or an affirmation would mean the member could not take part in proceedings. Continued refusal would mean the member was absent from parliament without leave, and ultimately could lead to their seat being declared vacant. (Although it wasn’t related to a refusal to take an oath as far as I know, Senator John Ferguson’s seat was declared vacant in 1903 for being absent without leave for over 2 months – [5]).

Having the status of a member/senator, and being permitted to take part in the proceedings of the house/senate, are therefore 2 different things. If this were not so, every time a member/senator is expelled for 24 hours for rowdy behavior, they’d cease being a member/senator for those 24 hours. This is obviously not the case.

So, the oath is a very important matter, but constitutionally, it’s not the thing that counts as far as the commencement of terms goes. To prove this, let me refer you to the case of Senator Thomas Bakhap of SA. He entered the Senate in 1913. He was re-elected in 1914, 1916 and 1922. His old term ended on 30 June 1923, and his new term commenced on 1 July 1923. I don't know when the Senate first sat after 1 July 1923, but Bakhap died on 18 August 1923, without having been sworn in to his new term. He is shown in the parliamentary records as being a Senator from 1 July, continuing through to his death in office on 18 August. The fact that he wasn't sworn in for this new term did not affect that. See here – the note at the bottom says "§ New term began 1.7.1923. Not sworn in; died 18.8.1923".

When it comes to the end of a member's term (other than casual vacancies), it depends on whether or not they contest the election. Those who do not renominate are said to "retire", and their term ends at the dissolution of the parliament. Those who renominate remain members up until election day. If they are successful, they continue uninterrupted. If they are defeated, their term ends on election day. To demonstrate, see here, which shows:

• Bob Charles ceasing to be a member on 31 August 2004, the date of the dissolution of the parliament
• Ross Cameron being a member up until election day 9 October 2004, when he was defeated; and
• Peter Costello continuing uninterrupted, because he fought the election and won.

Hope that all helps. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to detail that; it's quite enlightening. Retarius | Talk 00:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Keith Miller

Just to let you know that Keith Miller, a biog you've contributed to in the past, is the latest collaboration project of the cricket WikiProject, in our efforts to get The Invincibles to Featured Topic. If you'd like to join in... well, you're most welcome! Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

Having read your reasons for supporting December 21st, I now see your point. Here's hoping others will agree. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Chinese proverb

I think the "Chinese proverb" is really just a mangled form of a quote from Voltaire: "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." (Le doute n'est pas une condition agréable, mais la certitude est absurde.) Just thought you might like to know! One of my all-time favorite quotations. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Forde

Hi Jack,

Sorry if I did miss him, but I don't see any reference to a sculptor who made the Forde bust, does the website have a photo of the Forde bust or does it just refer to him in a list of Prime Ministers (which could be just copied from a reliable source of Prime Ministers such as wikipedia). Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 04:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, WT. I’m going purely by their website, which says "Each of the 25 Prime Ministers of Australia are displayed as bronze portraits mounted on polished granite pedestals". It clearly hasn’t been updated for Rudd (it has an opening date 1996 for Howard but no closing date), and Howard was the 25th PM, so I conclude that Forde is there. I have visited the place, but it was about 4 years ago and I didn’t take photos. I don’t particularly remember Forde being there, but it didn’t hit me as a glaring omission either. Sorry I couldn’t be more helpful. Cheers -- JackofOz (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

League of Copyeditors roll call

Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there. The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors.

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 18:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Richard Halliburton

I don't know if the article is still on your watchpage, but if you still have any interest in Richard Halliburton, I'd appreciate your eye over my recent changes. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Reagan's role in the Cold War

I don't know if you're interested, but I could use any of your comments here. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Quote

"If your primary question is "Am I making a fool of myself?", then the answer is "Yes, but that is an absolutely non-negotiable part of being in love"."

THIS SHOULD BE ON THE MAIN PAGE! ACTUALLY, IT SHOULD BE ON EVERY PAGE!

Excellent comment.

(I'm User:Rimush, but I don't feel like sigining in right now) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.122.178.66 (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Leaving (not)

Hi Jack! Thank you for your note ... not to worry, I find this place far too much fun to leave, although I get good and sick of being an administrator sometimes. Really appreciate your contributions to the reference desk, BTW. Seems every time I notice an interesting thread there you've already provided an excellent answer. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Australia Day

Jack, you have just removed two edits, to Annandale and Young Endeavour. I had fixed the links, and you (for some unknown reason) reverted them so they no longer worked! Please don't waste my time! Amandajm (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, my apologies for causing you distress. We were editing at the same time, I encountered an edit conflict, I checked out your changes and they didn't seem to conflict with mine, so I cut and pasted the whole (amended) section. No harm was intended, but these things sometimes happen.

Just one thing. "Please don't waste my time" suggests you're not quite familiar with Wikipedia:Assume good faith. It's well worth a read. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be rude about it. Amandajm (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Canberra air disaster, 1940

Tiny technical point of no real importance: WP shows a "difference" in line 31 (:Aircraftman Charles Joseph Crosdale), but the "before" and "after" look identical to me. Is there a difference? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Pdfpdf. No idea, mate. I didn't make any edits to that part of the text. I've encountered this sort of thing previously, and I've looked and looked but found no changes whatsoever. I assume it's some sort of software glitch. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. (Another of life's mysteries ... ) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Mark Hambourg

Dear Jack, Happy New Year! For some reason I failed to say this before... Hope you are thriving. I have just created very short stubs for Jan and Boris Hambourg and was about to do the same for the great Mark when I remembered he was on your list. Have you got some good data on him? One of the titans in my view... I shall hang fire with my measly stub till I hear what you plan. Best wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Eebahgum. HNY to you too. I've no immediate plans for Herr Hambourg, so please feel free to stubify away to your heart's content. Cheers. (Oh, I'll have mine with bacon, cheese, egg ... no, damn it, with the lot!  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Bless you, it's preferable to watching Ipswich Town kick the hell out of The Pilgrims, which interests me not at all! I will stub him very perfunctorily. Eebahgum (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

lol

[6] ---Sluzzelin talk 02:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What ho!

Hope you are well, you seem to be on good form, as for me, let's just say I'd rather be a petulant drama queen than a bitch ;) DuncanHill (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the bitch knows you now for exactly what you are. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Follow-up post is at User talk:Clio the Muse#Clarification.

Sorry Jack

Sorry Jack, I shouldn't have made that post. For the record, like many "confirmed bachelors", I am resolutely equal-opportunities in my use of the word complained about. DuncanHill (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Doing things by halves

Could you please amend your vote? You can't half vote for something. Timeshift (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

PM

As it stands, the article dwells more on the powers and role of the GG than it does the PM. The article uses as its template for the role of GG the conduct of John Kerr rather than the other impeccably behaved office holders of the position. The PM IS in fact the chief executive of the federal government. The constant use of the phrase "in practice" is largely superfluous since if something is "in practice" then it simply "is". Furthermore, the power of the PM is more than "in practice" it is known and bound by Westminster convention. Barring some exceptional circumstance the Deputy PM would always be sworn in on the death or incapacitation of the PM (Frank Forde after Curtin's death and the subsequent election of Chifley; McEwen after Holt drwoned and the election of McMahon) pending a party room ballot to determine the new leader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolme01 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Moving this discussion to Talk:Prime Minister of Australia. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

From the Maffras, eh?

Ah, no problem at all, my dear JackofOzDude. I suppose the matter of fighting came up when I suggested that we step outside and sort it out! I further suppose that where we are playful with the language, there are opportunities for misunderstandings. The price one (or two) pays (or pay). Here, have a rotating ball:

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 08:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Hope

I noticed that you have edited Anthony Hope. If you are still interested in that article, please have a look at the recent changes I have made. Any additions or clarifications would be most welcome. Thanks! BrainyBabe (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sir Dirk Bogarde

Mr. JackofOZ, I am confused beyond endurance by SteveCrook's continuing obsession with refusing to accept that Sir Dirk's family and friends knew and stated that he was gay. I really am not all that interested in Sir Dirk, but this fellow's lies and hypocrisy have left me baffled. Any words of insight would be helpful . . . Thank you. Pilch62 (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Pilch. See my post at Bogarde's talk page and my edit to the article. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack--tho' something tells me we haven't seen the last of Mr. Crook's bizarrerie about this. Pilch62 (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is smoking legal?

"(P)ay lip service to warning people off smoking": please tell me this was deliberate. You do make me laugh. ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha. No, Bielle, for once my innate wittiness was entirely unconscious and unplanned. But I had a fag between my lips as I was typing it, so that may have helped my brain out. I'm glad you enjoyed it. Cheers from down under. (Oh, and you're welcome to construct whatever misinterpretation you like out of "I had a fag between my lips". :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The wrinkles on my forehead are a result of trying to work out how that would work, as it were. You could likely tell me, but, at the moment I am imagining sizes and angles and positions that are fraught, to say the least. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you can work it out. Consider the other meanings of "fag".  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

But it just doesn't bend that way, or stretch that far; that's my problem. Either the keyboard or the monitor is in the way. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"It"? Surely a personal pronoun would be more apposite. Just what the hell are you thinking about, Bielle? You crazy Canucks! Anyway, there's no limit to the extent of human ingenuity when to comes to ... such matters. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What I was thinking about obviously doesn't bear thinking about. I had to go for a cool cloth and a little lie down. I'm alright now, Jack. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Mozart

Hi JackofOz, I just wanted to thank you in particular for your extremely in-depth answer to my Mozart question on WP:RD/H. I thought your suggestion to listen for the little details in Mozart was especially interesting. Also having taken lessons with a German trained composition teacher, I’m sure your right that Mozart would have been unsympathetic towards the difficulties faced by his interpreters! As Artur Schnabel said “The sonatas of Mozart are unique: too easy for children, too difficult for adults. Children are given Mozart to play because of the quantity of notes; grown-ups avoid him because of the quality of notes.” In any case I have a recording of Mozart’s Clarinet Quintet on hold at the library. How could I resist with that description you gave of it! --S.dedalus (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You're more than welcome, S. dedalus. Enjoy! -- JackofOz (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky: "homosexual" or "gay"?

Hope you don't mind my writing you here instead of posting this on Talk:Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. After considerable complaining and no help whatsoever from Hyacinth I changed nearly all places where the word "homosexual" was used. The reason: the word was anqiquated and using an antiquaged term was offfensive. I had meant to use it clinically and had been under the impression the term "gay" had a more political or societal connotation that may not have existed as such in Tchaikovsky's time. After reading what you wrote about the subject on Talk:Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, I'm coming to you for advice. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jonyungk. I've learned to keep out of such debates, because what's offensive to one person isn't to another, so there's no set-in-stone rule about this. You'll find similar debates all over Wikipedia, e.g. Dirk Bogarde. From a personal perspective, I have absolutely no difficulty in being described as "gay", "homosexual" or "queer"; others prefer one or other of these terms, but get offended if any other terms are used. I also can't see why the fact that a term is antiquated (if it in fact is antiquated) necessarily makes it offensive. In any case, "homosexual" is far from antiquated, in my experience. Also, the use of "gay" to refer to people who are homosexual in nature but never acknowledged it is contentious, to say the least, even for living people, and more so where the person in question lived well before the term "gay" was invented. "Gay" has connotations that go beyond merely an attraction to the same sex. I suppose one could make the same argument about "homosexual", which was coined only in the late 1880s from memory - there were obviously many people before then who in fact were, for want of a better word, homosexual. References go back to biblical times, and earlier - and there's no reason to believe that homosexuality has not always been a feature of human society. So, nomenclature is a very complex issue, and if it seems I'm sitting on the fence about this, you're right. I just don't think that "one size fits all". Sorry if that's not helpful.

On a different matter, having looked at the edit history over the past 12 months, while many people have contributed to the article, the name that appears far more than any others is yours, Jongyungk. Sometimes you’ve made dozens of edits on a single day. The scope and quality of the article is far more extensive now than before you became involved – so full credit for all the work you’ve done. However, and maybe I could have said this earlier, but my personal preference is to work on an article incrementally, in smallish changes. When one editor seems to be taking the main running, others may feel that all they can do is to comment on that editor’s work by way of correcting spelling mistakes, grammar or whatever, and there’s not much room to make their own individual contributions. I have close to 4,000 articles on my watchlist, and I prefer not to spend a large amount of time on any one article, but to spread my work around. I also serve on the WP:Reference Desk, and that consumes a fair deal of my time here. These factors have certainly contributed to my avoiding Tchaikovsky for much of the time you’ve been around. I had no reason to believe your work was in any detrimental, in fact what I’ve seen of it suggests the opposite, so I left it you. Others may have had the same attitude, which may explain why your calls for comments have fallen on deaf ears. Ask me to comment on a single sentence, or a single paragraph, or to debate the finer nuances of particular words, and I’m generally fine with that (just not in the debate about "gay" vs. "homosexual", unfortunately) – but asking me to comment on months of substantial contributions in one go is just too much. I simply cannot match your dedication in terms of the time you spend on this one article. Not sure where this leaves you, but I hope it’s of some benefit in considering the way forward for Pyotr Ilyich. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You bring up a very valid point: For lack of a better way of phrasing it, a by-product of my continued work on Tchaikovksy has been the shutting-out of other voices in the process. In this way, I basically created my own monster here. That's not a negative but a simple fact. It doesn't entirely cover the Hyacinth business—in my previous experience, when you complain vociferously about something being written, you bring something positive to the table as well, to expedite a solution. But it sounds like I might not have allowd an atmosphere of dialogue simply due to my continued work. It's a little disheartening since my usual pattern has been to continue working on something until its done or I'm rotating multiple projects, but thanks for letting me know. It does make things a little more undrstandable. Jonyungk (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Three Nuns

Hello. I just happened to notice your post about Three Nuns on the Language Help Desk page. In fact, yes ... that is exactly the type of thing I would (and do) appreciate. I will reply more fully later. Right now, I am in a tail-spin over all of the Academy Award edits, etc. Thanks. I will check your post out more fully, and respond more fully, later. As I said, I only ran across it by mere coincidence ... and I saw my name staring out at me from your post. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC))