User talk:JackofOz

HISTORY

• Up to 30 June, 2005: see User talk:JackofOz/Archive1
• 1 July, 2005 - 31 January, 2006: see User talk:JackofOz/Archive2
• 1 February, 2006 - 30 June, 2006: see User talk:JackofOz/Archive3
• 1 July, 2006 - 28 February, 2007: see User talk:JackofOz/Archive4

• 1 March, 2007 onwards, see below.

Helen Mirren edits

It might be better to explain that in the body of the articke rather than just using the tag. People will see her title, and thing either the titling or tag are incorrect. Describing the declining of the Honour might bridge the gap and explain matters better. Maybe you can find a place to add when she has declined title, with a citation. That would be awesome.Arcayne 08:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you getting back to me in a timely fashion, Jack. Regarding the Helen Mirren investiture. I think it prudent to reference within the article the process by which she refused one investiture for a lower ranking, but later accepted a higher one (I didn't even know that was or could be done). I don't think we can include her in a category that defines her without including a summary or whatnot of the original declination (and maybe reasons, which might make for noteworthiness) and the subsequent acceptance. You seem like a reasonable enough fellow, and I think that if you still genuinely disagree with me on this, there might be others who disagree as well. We can remove the category listing and discuss it on the Discussion page until some concensus is reached.Arcayne 19:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Karl Marx

Hey, Jack. Caught your interesting remark at the Humanities Desk. This is translated from de:Karl Marx (Komponist). No clue whether it helps, but here it is, for what it's worth:

Karl Marx (* November 12 1897 in Munich; † May 8 1985 in Stuttgart) was a German composer and educator.

Karl Marx first studied natural sciences, and later musical composition with Carl Orff and Siegmund von Hausegger among others. In 1929 he was appointed professor for compositional technique at the Akademie der Tonkunst, Munich. From 1939 to 1945 he taught at the Johann-Joseph-Fux-Conservatory in Graz. From 1946 until given emeritus status he was professor of composition at the Musikhochschule Stuttgart.

He composed orchestral works, concerti, chamber music, piano music, works for organ, cantatas, numerous choral works and lieder set to words by German poets. Among his primary causes were his compositions of music for young people, which were well received in his day.

Works (selection)

• Rilke-Gesänge (Rilke Songs), op. 1, op. 6 und op. 11 for mixed choir
• Drei Chöre (Three Choirs), op. 46 set to Fritz Diettrich
• Heitere Verse (Cheerful Verses), op. 54 set to Wilhelm Busch and Eugen Roth
• Raube das Licht aus dem Rachen der Schlange (Rob the Light from the Serpent's Throat), op. 57, Cantata set to Hans Carossa for solo baritone, mixed choir and orchestra

Take care. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The other Marx

Thanks, Jack, for that information, and to Sluzzelin for digging it out. I find it incredibly difficult to imagine a Karl Marx working with the Nazis! How on earth was he received when he was introduced to people for the first time? I shall now look for an Adolf Hitler as an agent of the Comintern! Again my thanks. Clio the Muse 06:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Of Truth, Facts and Cucumbers

I promise, Jack, for once I'm sending you a note involving absolutely no wiki-politics!

Rather, I was rather intrigued by your post regarding your interpretation of what a "fact" is, in the recent "Wittgenstein" discussion.

I've been thinking about it, and I feel that for the sake of not raising a row, I may have been acting intellectually dishonest with you by sloughing off any possible difference of opinion between us.

The fact is that I'm having a quite a bit more trouble accepting what you said on the matter than I let on.

I just cannot accept, as you seem to be arguing, that what is a "fact" is defined entirely by popular understanding, rather than the "truth" of the matter. Unlike what I believe to be is your position, I can't accept the existence of a "false-fact" as being anything but an oxymoron.

Take a cucumber. (Quite the segue, eh?:) I'm quite certain that if asked whether a cucumber is a fruit or a vegetable, somewhere in the area of 90% of the general population would assert with confidence that a cucumber is most definitely a vegetable, and definitely not a fruit. Yet in truth, a cucumber is a fruit, not a vegetable.

Now, according to your interpretation of what a "fact" is, being that such an overwhelming majority...pretty much a consensus of the general population believe a cucumber to be a vegetable and not a fruit, by implication then, it would now be correct to assert that it's a "fact" that a cucumber is a vegetable, while in "truth", it's a fruit.

Is a cucumber, then, "in fact" a vegetable, while "in truth" a fruit?

Take it easy, Jack.

Lewis Loomis 05:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that I understand better how wiki works, and how everything is "etched in stone", so to speak, in the your page's history, I took the liberty of deleting my last paragraph, as I think it would be impolitic to leave it there. Now that you've read it, if you feel it more appropriate to respond by email, by all means. My apologies if I was overstepping my bounds.

With regards to the "fact" thing, it would seem that what you seem to be defining as "fact", is what would seem to me to be more appropriately termed "dogma".

Alas, the chef's of the world haven't yet formed a multi-zillion dollar organization and level of immense authority to enforce their dogma, and persecute those who dare question their decidedly pro-vegetable interpretation of the status and nature of the all-important cucumber, yet one can only dream of the magnificent utopia a chefocracy would be.

I believe there was once a great man who once said "Sometimes a cucumber is just a cucumber" ... or at least something like that.

Sorry, I'm just in a bit of a loopy mood, as you would put it. :)

In any case, more fully understanding your view, I now can't help but say I disagree with it ... but what healthy friendships don't have their share of violent disagreements such as these?

Take good care, Jack. Looking forward to a vicious rebuttle! :--)

Lewis Loomis 12:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Betty Hutton

Hi, We have never put additional notes on the Notable Deaths page. Part of the appeal of the article is its clean lines and uniformity. I'm quite happy to omit the entry until the date is confirmed, but I don't support the addition of notes. Let's see what others think? WWGB 04:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Keeping calm on ref. desk...vs. tolerating anti-semites

Folks, the person in question below is DILIGENT, not Dweller. I feel awful for pointing in the wrong direction -- please help me correct it. Jfarber 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note of reality on the ref. desk this eve, Jack. In my defense, I DO believe that such discussions are fun and harmless...and intended only to pre-empt Dweller DILIGENT from yet another drift into his anti-semitic screed. It was petty of me to try to wave rules to do so, especially by making a statement that I would not stand by if made to others. But Dweller DILIGENT has brought down the caliber of the desk, in his various guises (Barringa, etc.), and dragged us down with him...and his antisemitic slippery ways are pissing me off and hurting me personally (yes, I'm Jewish, and he's making me feel pretty unwelcome on the desk, which is a shame).

I'd be happy to see someone else figure out a way to get him out of there; the anti-semitism is hurting me pretty badly, and it forced me to stop using the desks as a poential space to direct my middle school students, lest I get in hot water professionally for utilizing a space with such shrilly, school-inappropriate language and attacks as his. Pretty soon, it's going to be him or me. Anything you can think of, from blocking to more subtle tactics, would be especially appreciated. Jfarber 03:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, this time for the quick response. I suppose the anti-semitism itself doesn't bother me that much -- its the trolling, and what MUST be a deliberate obtuseness, because i believe those ARE personal. For example, see our exchange on Dweller's talk page, or the fact that, over the last few hours, the TITLE of the relevant reference desk question was changed to accuse me BOTH of something I did (change the title to include "not a reference question, which we've discussed) and something I would never do, and that seems pretty egregious (editing his TALK page, as if that was bad, when all I did was add a plea for him to leave off.) And where is one supposed to say "I didn't do that" without falling into the baiting trap of letting the ref desk become a space of interpersonal attack? So I let it go...but such sneaky tactics, and now PERSONAL attacks in PUBLIC spaces -- both linguistically, to try to twist my words, and now literally, in the titles of the ref desk -- are harder to avoid, and seem more directed at me, than the way someone might feel about a race or group. Jfarber 09:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in and cluttering your talk page, Jack. The user currently signed in as Leasing Agent (formerly user:Barringa, among others) created a dialogue on his talk page switching his own signatures, to and fro, from Leasing Agent to Dweller. I've informed Dweller. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Sorry about that, I'm a confused user. I still would like to know, however, are you saying that Barringa, Leasing_Agent etc. is Dweller in disguise? ---Sluzzelin talk 11:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Jfarber, you might like to correct these assertions about me. --Dweller 11:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I will -- my sincere apologies for confusing the usernames. Folks, the person isn question is DILIGENT, not Dweller. I feel awful for pointing in the wrong direction -- please help me correct it. Jfarber 14:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Fletcher Jones

Hi, I like the article and he is certainly an important Australian.

Would you mind adding some references to this so that it meets the requirements laid out at WP:ATT? If indeed the whole article is sourced from the Australian Dictionary of Biography, then there is a very useful template to add to the article - see the Ausbio template.

Thanks for adding a great article about an important Australian, Garrie 01:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy St Paddy's day to you. Of course, we're all Irish on that one special day ;)....

John Carne Bidwill uses the template {{tl:Ausbio}}, there are a few others... pretty much if Project Gutenberg of Australia has an entry for FJ, it's probably the easiest one to use (in that, I know it's name ;-^) )Garrie 00:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Jenufa

Hi. Just a note to say that, although we know this opera as Jenufa, it was never renamed by Janacek and is performed under its original title in its native country, see, for example, the results of this Google search. Best. --GuillaumeTell 18:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Rebecca

Hello

Just a small point really, you seem to have altered the Rebecca article and your edit summary stated "he was called Max, not Maxim". Well, yes, but in actual fact everyone else in the book refers to him as Maxim. It was only Rebecca who called him Max, and in fact the heroine thinks it sounded "terrible, racy". So, really, I think you'll find that all the "goodies" in the book refer to him as Maxim. Just thought I would draw your attention to it. RegardsLuckyles 16:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A favour to ask...

Could you have a word with Loomis? He respects your opinions, and right now he's spinning his wheels; he just can't seem to let the matter with Clio drop. He seems hell-bent on getting to one of two outcomes—either we all snap to our senses and acknowledge that Clio is a Nazi apologist (or possibly that she's just driven by hopelessly 'misguided naivité'), or he's going to keep badgering her – and anyone who suggests he's misjudged things – until he gets blocked for continued, persistent attacks.

I hope you can help him find a third way. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts. I would be surprised indeed if the majority of parties who might benefit from your remarks did not have either my or your talk page watchlisted; I don't imagine it will be necessary to lead them by their noses to your comments. (I reserve the right to dust your words off and pass them around in future disputes, however—possibly prefaced with "A wise man once said...".) Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Help desk "agression"

Yeah, I was sorta uncivil with my suggestion, but it really bugs me that some people just direct anons and IPs to articles and hope for the best. Thanks, AMP'd 19:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

About Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#looking for a important number, can't locate?

Regarding your query. There are articles on pwn and Owned. In short, it's a deliberate subcultural slang usage of a common typo ; "e pwns you all" more or less means "the mathematical constant e is better than any and all numbers that you have put forward." Thus, "This userpage comment is really just an excuse to say how much I really enjoy reading JackofOz's Wikipedia Ref Desk contributions. They are always insightful, wise, and witty. Above all, they both inform and at the same time respect not only the person originally asking the questions, but also the other people suggesting answers," could be reduced to "JackofOz pwns Wikipedia:Reference desk".
See also:

• Leet
• Internet slang
• QWERTY
• Emus to Chile
• Rat Stew
• If woken, a wimp ended, sir!

--Shirt58 14:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jack of Oz, and (perhaps bold, definitely bold, marginally bold and not quite bold) thank you baby for your reply.
Your reply made my day - big smiles all around the possums in the Shirt household.
Mmm. Dark cloud in an otherwise clear blue sky, however: what's the situation with you and Loomis? Looking at the archives, you two so seemed to be wikifriends for so long. I'm worried that it's going to escalate from your user:talk pages to all those template wiki:ACRONYMS...

Anyways. Thanks again. --Shirt58 14:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Coming out on the Help Desk

Jack, thank you for coming out on the Help Desk in response to the question about "baby". I am ashamed to admit that I logged out before providing the answer directly above yours. Next time I will not be so cowardly.

Best wishes,

Marco polo 22:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC) (in real life Mark O'Malley)

Get Yourself a Backbone, Jack.

I notice that you disapprove of me sticking up for myself in your remark to me that I should "Grow up!".

Well, if by "Growing up!" you seem to be implying that I should let others insult me in whatever way they please, without any remark of objection, that I should just "take it", than I wholeheartedly reject that notion.

In such a case if someone should refer to you as some faggot, some limp-wristed "bone-smoker", I suppose you would just "Grow up and take it" as you suggest I should.

Sorry Jack.

Maybe you're ok with it, but you're not my only gay friend.

On behalf of all my other gay friends, I'll continue to stir up the shit whenever they make such ugly remarks against gays, just as I do whenever I see ugly remarks against Jews being made.

You tell me Jack, to grow up. I tell you Jack, get yourself a backbone.

Loomis 23:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Billings and the date of his death

Thanks for joining in at John Billings. I read about his death here, where it said 1 April. I then googled for information, and found this article, where it says he died late on Sunday night. I forgot what date it was, and calculated that Sunday was 2 April, so the second article seemed to confirm what the first one had said. It was only after I saw your edit summary that I began to have doubts and checked my computer clock. Obviously, it's time for bed, if I'm getting my dates muddled! If you have any information to add, please go right ahead. I feel a bit guilty about going to bed now with a newly-created article that has no sources except for a press release concerning the subject's death, but actually, everything that I put in would be easily found in the first few google hits for "John Billings" + died + April. I'll put in proper references soon. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Coitus Interruptus

"Well, it's probable that someone has tried. But is it possible without coitus interruptus raising its ugly head?" - raising?, shouldn't that be lowering?  ;-) - X201 08:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

B[y]elorussia vs. White Russia

Yes, Jack, I agree that this is indeed a question of history rather than language per se, though the choice of version seems to hinge on matters of Cyrillic-to-English transliteration. My choice of the Language RD rather than Humanities was based on a rather pragmatic decision of where I'd be likely to get the more reputable, hence useful, answer. I hope that this mild though not-wholly-innocent manipulation on my part will be viewed with indulgent tolerance (and perhaps even sympathetic comprehension) by my fellow RD contributors, certainly in view of my regular serious efforts there! -- Cheers, Deborahjay 09:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Stuart Devlin

Article done! But I now see this is on your To Do list, so I hope you aren't miffed. Do please enhance as you see fit! Best wishes, Carbonix 15:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi, JackofOz! We never continued that discussion on relationships. I've been really busy so I didn't have the time to come to your user page. I also didn't want to post something here and then make you wait for a week to get another post from me.

I was also afraid you somehow were "on the other side" of the debates that are going on about the Reference Desk and didn't want to talk to me anymore.

I was also afraid you might think I'm too young to be taken seriously.

Paranoid thoughts aside, I just read your post on the talk page of Marco Polo and then I felt like coming here and writing this post. I really liked reading the (few) things by you that I have come across on the Reference Desks and on its talk page and I hope we can be friends.

And I hope that if we do become friends that we do continue our discussion, since none of us would want our friends to live their lives doing it all wrong when it comes to relationships! Well, maybe none of our opinions are "wrong", but we've got nothing to lose and possibly much to gain by discussing them.

That's it for now. I hope you don't take too long to reply! A.Z. 19:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Cheer Up

Thanks Jack:) I know he has dug his own proverbial hole...but he still gets to me sometimes. Just erks me the wrong way. I let him get to me, but from now on, I am just going to be nice, quote rules, and move on to more enjoyable things:). Take Care and Rock on....SVRTVDude ^{(Yell | Toil)} 07:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Jack, I appreciate your efforts to reach out to Orangemonster. Please do be careful when you're giving such advice, though, not to give the impression that it's mostly Calton's fault. (Aside from being inaccurate, giving such an impression to a party to a dispute often emboldens them to continue behaving inappropriately. It stokes the flames, and tends to lead to further incivility and blocks.)

In this particular case, there's definitely a 'takes-two-to-tango' aspect. Orangemonster was edit warring over a point that had been discussed on the article's talk page. While I hesitate to declare a clear consensus in that discussion, the weight of the arguments and participants was definitely not on Orangemonster's side. The article had already been protected once due to revert warring, which should usually be a sign to involved parties that they're on thin ice. Orangemonster's attempt and failure – twice – to play a 3RR 'gotcha' on Calton certainly didn't cool the tone of the discussion.

It doesn't help that the two of them were at each other's throats during the ignominious return of Gordon Watts; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive199#The Return of User:GordonWatts for a small sample of that history. (That's just the first thing that I ran across with Google, there are other more extensive discussions.)

Calton is argumentative, and sometime has a short fuse. His remarks often brush – or cross over – the border of civil behaviour. I don't recall a case where his participation has had the effect of calming down a dispute, though perhaps we just don't hear about those cases on WP:AN/I. I have in past issued him warnings about his conduct. However, in this case, and most cases that I've seen, there are two things that tend to insulate him from admin action. First, the positions that he takes are usually correct from a Wikipedia policy and guideline standpoint. Second, the parties he is in a dispute with very seldom have clean hands themselves. They have often, in their turn, been incivil, or edit warring, or otherwise unpleasant. Short of blocking both parties – which often just leads to a resumption of hostilities a day later – there is little that can be done. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Win-win

Hello Jack. I was interested to read your referral to a win-win scenario on the Ref Desk. Do you have a mechanism in mind that could achieve that goal? Personally I think the suggestion anyone can "win" is personalising the issue and part of the problem, not the solution. Despite what StuRat thinks, I really don't mind whether I "win" or "lose". What I would like is a set of guidelines that formed in a way contributors can respect - whatever they may be - and the only way to do that is to form a consensus. If I don't like what the community wants out of a Ref Desk, I will stop frequenting it as there are plenty of other parts of the project that I am involved in. This is the only way I can think of resolving this difference on opinion. If you have any other ideas, then It would be great to hear them, but I don't think keeping the status quo is a healthy option. Rockpocket 22:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jack, thanks for your thoughts. Its an honest, fair philosophy you espouse; one I widely agree with. However, I'm not sure it fits in entirely with the Wikipedian system. For example, there are lots of interactions here that are certainly not win-win (the way we block vandals or those who edit maliciously), because sometimes people have agendas so different from that of the project that to compromise would invalidate the entire purpose of Wikipedia. Those people are certainly not winners by the outcome, anyway you cut it.

Now, I'm not suggesting the Ref Desk issue is a strict example one of these, and I do think there is space to find an acceptable compromise, but at some point - when the purpose of the project is being abused - there has to be a line drawn in the sand. In this situation it no longer is a case of respecting differences in individual opinion, its a case of enforcing policy. The problem comes with the interpretation of policy, of course. That is where relationships break down and claims of admin abuse arrive. (You know, since I have been an admin, I have noticed that there are certain situations where, no matter what you do prior, you will be accused of abuse by certain people as soon as you disagree with them. I have seen it before many times. Praised has been heaped on me by editors because I happened to act in a manner that they approved of. If the very next thing I do they disapprove of, complaints of bias or admin abuse are made. It is logically fallacious, of course, but that appears to be lost on them. I see the very same thing happen this week with StuRat and TenOfAllTrades and it basically sucked all the goodwill out of me. Its very hard to have any respect for an editor when you see that).

Anyway, back to the point. On the Ref Desk I don't believe "all contributions are of equal value" for the reader. Empirically speaking, that simply cannot be true. However, I do believe that all types of contributions can be of equally valuble - i.e. a reader could get as much out of a well constructed opinion or analysis than a simple link to a reference. Often that is not the case, however, and I think on average sourced content is better because the quality of informed opinion varies wildly. But I'm realistic enough to realise we have to have some leeway here. Its for this reason that I don't have a problem with tolerating opinions as answers, or even limited discussion when it is on topic. What I do believe is important is that contributors are fully informed about what kind of information they are getting. My biggest frustration is seeing personal opinion phrased as fact. And it gets even more frustrating when individuals then criticize (sourced) fact with their personal opinion (disguised as fact). I think this is very misleading to the reader, and a perfect example of respondents' egos getting out of control. So, despite all the rhetoric about deletionism and elitism attributed to me by others, all I really am proposing is that answers be prefaced with an honest disclaimer that what follows is speculation, opinion, original analysis, fact (as far as they are concerned, albeit unsourced) or fact (sourced). If individuals are willing to do that then I don't see a problem with any genuine attempt to impart knowledge constructively. To that end, there does appear (to me) to be moves towards this by some editors (including StuRat, who appears to have gone one step further and moves speculative answers to another place) which I applaud. This would essentially resolve my issues with the Ref Desk (though I can't speak for others).

I apologise for the rambling nature of this reply (I'm not even sure it fully addresses your comments, to be honest), but its late here and I need to sleep. Although I think we probably have somewhat different perspective on this issue, I greatly respect your contributions to the Ref Desk, and the discussion around it. I guess I wanted to engage to try and move the discussion forward towards a solution, and I can't seem to make any progress towards that on the Ref Desk discussion itself. Rockpocket 07:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Your Siloti spelling edit 66.183.208.246 02:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jack:

First, my thanks for your contribution to the Siloti website. Much appreciated.

Second, a substantiation of the spelling commentary. In my book, I documented (as best I could) the long-held belief in the Siloti family that the 'Italian' spelling correctly represented the likelihood that their forebears migrated to Russia from Firenze, or Genoa, in the early 16th C. These claims were made without proof, but in perfect earnestness.

Indeed, the family believes that they began as 'Silotti', passed through the Balkans, and once settled in Ukraine became 'Ziloti'. When Alexander gained fame in the West, they became 'Siloti' all over again.

Go figure.

Thanks once more,

Charles

Dr Charles Barber (MA, DMA Stanford) 'Lost in the Stars: The Forgotten Musical Life of Alexander Siloti'

Dear Charles, thanks for your feedback. It's great to have such an affirmation as this. Transliteration of Russian names (particularly names that originally came from other languages) is one of my special interests. There's so much inconsistency, it's a wonder we can get any pronunciations correct. My favourite is "Tchaikovsky" - the cluster "tch" appears in no language I know of, at the start of a word. Yet, this is the compromise we all have to live with now. For a while (and maybe still), Grove listed him as "Chaykovsky", which was certainly closer to a proper English transliteration, except that nobody would ever look for him under an initial other than T. Then there's "Chaliapin" - the French version Chaliapine has been abridged, so we end up with a transliteration that doesn't sit well with any language. As you say, go figure. Technical accuracy sometimes has to take a back seat. Thanks again. JackofOz 02:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

re: tchaikovsky

As a Russian scholar, you might be familiar with Radio Yerevan. Did you know they were asked the eternal Tchaikovsky question as well? Armeniapedia has the joke at the bottom of this section. Take care, Jack. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Responding to suicidal individuals

Hi JackofOz. I would like to invite you to commenting upon or edit the new proposed policy Wikipedia:Responding to suicidal individuals now that it has finally come up for discussion on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Policies. Hopefully we can reach consensus (or not) within a week or two. Thanks! S.dedalus 23:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Jahbulon-with-a- J

Great remark on the dubious qualities of US Presidents (Humanities Reference Desk, April 13, 3.10)! Better you than me, since we expats are subject to suspicion as to our loyalties to the old homeland (whose citizenship I not only retain but have arranged for my offspring). I owe you an answer, by the way, about whether you can call me "DJ" — well, sure, but not so sure I'll answer to that form. The Deborahjay moniker exists outside of Wikipedia as well, in RL as well as in the ether. It started as an in-your-face furrin' abbreviation of my married surname, that starts with this letter that doesn't exist in the Hebrew language (that of my adopted homeland). "Jest a joke, son...!" Now that you're clued in, may I just take this opportunity to mention that I appreciate your tone on the RD scene, which helps balance mine that's so often tooooo serious (though the content, IMO, must be :-) Keep up the good work! -- Deborahjay 16:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Re "Stops"

I guess I could have been a little more precise when asking my question. I assumed that stops served some purpose along the lines of indicating a period or end of a paragraph, but I wasn’t really sure.

As for my educational background I went to grade school in the 90s and graduated from high school in 2005. I guess since I went to grade school just as the internet was beginning to become popular telegraphy was not thought of as something we would ever use, or need to know about. I went to private schools for grade school and high school and would consider the quality of education that I received to be above average. I now attend the University of Wisconsin Colleges. After attending a public college for the last two years it has become even more obvious that my education was better than many of my class mates, most of whom attended public grade/high schools. I definitely understand what you mean by seeing “more and more highly intelligent people having all kinds of what I would have thought were basic problems.” From my experience the people I know with the highest I.Q., G.PA., ACT scores… are some of the stupidest people I know when it comes to the problems of everyday life. Hopefully this answers your question, if you want to know anything else let me know. --ChesterMarcol 17:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

question

It doesn't really affect the page, but I was curious about your claim in your recent edit that the numbering system for minor planets was now defunct. It certainly appears to be in rude health to me. Serendipodous 06:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Stay cool

Please do not make personal attacks as you did on the Reference Desk[1]. Thank you.--71.185.138.46 16:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)