User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page40

Help Me

{{helpme}}

There are some particular users (Special:Contributions/209.244.43.233 and Special:Contributions/209.244.43.234) who keep making back-and-forth edits to this article: Michael Welner. It is the same edit, over and over and over, repeatedly. They add the wife's name, then they subtract it, then they say that she is a wife, then they say that she is a fiancee, then they say her credentials, then they change her credentials, then they delete her credetials. It's like a junior high school game of child's play. Is there any way to stop this foolishness? To be honest, it seems like there is some personal investment on the part of the sparring editors -- like two women are fighting over this man. The fiancee versus the wife. Or the soon-to-be fiancee versus the soon-to-be ex-wife. Or whatever. Very childish. I suspect that this is some sort of free open-access computer, like at a Library or College or something like that. Nonetheless, is there anything that can be done ... and, if so, what? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC))

Request for page protection maybe? Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WARNING: beware of the 3RR Rule when reverting the edits. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess what I was getting at is this ... Is there a way to "block" that User? Or even to check if it is indeed some free-access computer with really no particular individual User attached to it? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC))

The shenanigans seem to have stopped. If they restart, I will consider semi-protecting the page. - Revolving Bugbear 20:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I am curious ... what makes you say that the shenanigans seem to have stopped? Have you checked the substantive edits from those accounts to that page? There may be a temporary lull ... but, I am sure that once I revert an edit, it will all start up again. Also, is it at all possible to block a particular user --- and, how so? Also, is it possible to determine if this is indeed some free-access computer with really no particular individual User attached to it --- and, how so? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC))

Hrm, I hadn't noticed the edits on previous days, only those from today. The editing patterns do seem to indicate public computers, which blocking needs to be very conservative and may not be effective. Still, I'm not sure there's enough there for a page protection. I will keep an eye on this -- please don't hesitate to contact me in regard to this or any other issue. - Revolving Bugbear 21:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this was brought to my own attention. Unfortunately, I have a stalker (Banks) who is delusional and who altered my web page to remove my wife's name and to insert her own. My previous page was accurate as it was. I removed Banks' name once, and when she resumed her vandalism or other contact of me, I threatened to report her to the authorities. I prefer to be private emailed about this issue so as to address it constructively in the future. Regards, Dr. Welner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.59.2.70 (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Simple Math Question About Leap Years

To: User talk:StuRat and User talk:Lomn

From: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro

Re: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics#Simple Math Question -- Need Help -- Leap Years (?)

Can someone please help me with this simple math calculation? I can't understand it and it's driving me crazy. Any insight is appreciated. Thanks.

• Person A is born on 12/18/1946 and dies on 03/21/1994
• Person B is born on 12/18/1904 and dies on 03/20/1952

Method One

According to Microsoft Excel: A lived 17,260 days and B lived 17,259 days.

That seems to make "sense" since ... although in different calendar years ... they were both born on the same "day" (December 18) but Person A lived an extra day in March (dying on March 21 instead of March 20) while Person B did not live for that extra day in March (dying on March 20 instead of March 21). So, it makes sense that the March 21 decedent (Person A) has lived one extra day more than the March 20 decedent (Person B) ... that is, Person A lived 17,260 days which is one day more than Person B who lived 17,259 days.

So, the only thing that is truly "different" between Person A and B is ... the actual calendar years that they lived through ... and thus "how many leap years / leap days did each person live through." (I think?)

Person A has lived through 12 leap days: in 1948, 1952, 1956, 1960, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992.

Person B has lived through 12 leap days: in 1908, 1912, 1916, 1920, 1924, 1928, 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948, and 1952.

Using Method One (above), Person A lived one extra day more than Person B.

Method Two

Person A: From December 18, 1946 to December 18, 1993 is exactly 47 years. So, A celebrates his 47th birthday. The date of death on March 21, 1994 is 93 days after the birthday. (using Excel or viewing a calendar)

Person B: From December 18, 1904 to December 18, 1951 is exactly 47 years. So, B celebrates his 47th birthday. The date of death on March 20, 1952 is 93 days after the birthday. (using Excel or viewing a calendar)

Using Method Two (above), Person A lives 47 years and 93 days. Person B also lives 47 years and 93 days. (There is no "one day" difference.)

Method Three

I tried to use the Wikipedia template located at: Template:age in years and days.

Typing in these dates and values yields the following results:

Person A:

{{age in years and days|1946|12|18|1994|03|21}}

yields:

47 years, 93 days

Person B:

{{age in years and days|1904|12|18|1952|03|20}}

yields:

47 years, 93 days

So, Method Three (above) agrees with Method Two (above) ... Person A and Person B died at exactly the same age.

Method Four

I also tried to use the Wikipedia template located at: Template:age in days.

Typing in these dates and values yields the following results:

Person A:

{{age in days|1946|12|18|1994|03|21}}

yields:

17260

Person B:

{{age in days|1904|12|18|1952|03|20}}

yields:

17259

So, Method Four (above) agrees with Method One (above) ... Person A and Person B did not die at exactly the same age, but one day off.

Question

Can anyone help me understand the difference / distinction / discrepancy between these four methods? I seem to be missing something, but I cannot figure out what. Thanks. Where is my reasoning flawed?

Method One and Four agree that "A" lives one day longer than "B". (17,260 versus 17,259)

Methods Two and Three agree that "A" and "B" live exactly the same length of time. (47 years and 93 days)

So, perhaps the word "year" means a different thing for Person A than it does for Person B?

That is, the word "year" means 365 days in some cases ... but it means 366 days in some other (leap-year) cases.

That might seem to cause the discrepancy.

However, Person "A" has lived during 12 leap years/days ... and Person "B" has also lived during 12 leap year/days.

Thus, for both persons, the word "year" means 366 days in 12 years of their lives ... and the word "year" means 365 days in the other 36 years of their lives. They have both lived through 12 leap years and 35 normal years (thus, a birthday of 47 years total) ... plus a fractional piece of yet another (i.e., their 48th) year.

Can anyone help me understand the difference / distinction / discrepancy between these four methods? I seem to be missing something, but I cannot figure out what.

Where is my thinking flawed? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 05:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

All the methods are correct, but methods 1 and 4 are more useful for comparing ages. The reason is that methods 2 and 3 each count "47 years", but those years have variable lengths, some being leap years and some not. As it works out, the 47 years between 12/18/1946 and 12/18/1993 contain 12 leap days (48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92) while the 47 years between 12/18/1904 and 12/18/1951 contain 11 leap days (08, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48). Note that 1952 is not in the 47 year period in the second case. StuRat 07:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, had methods 2 and 3 counted from death back in time, the 47 years in each period both would have 12 leap years: 03/21/1947 to 03/21/1994 (48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68, 72, 76, 80, 84, 88, 92) and 03/20/1905 to 03/20/1952 (08, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52). The number of additional days would be 93 from 12/18/1946 to 03/21/1947 but only 92 from 12/18/1904 to 03/20/1905. Thus, you would get ages of 47 years, 93 days and 47 years, 92 days, respectively. The lesson ? Don't use variable sized units if you want an accurate result. StuRat 07:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, StuRat. Thank you for your reply to my question posted on the Math Help Desk (referenced aboved). I appreciate it. However, I am confused now more than ever. Can you please help me understand this situation? It's driving me nuts. Thanks so much. If you like, please start your explanation from scratch -- so that I can follow it more easily. However, I thought it was important to note that both people (A and B) lived through 12 leap days in the course of their lives. At some point, you said that one guy only had 11 leap days, while the other had 12. (You lost me there.) Then, you said, if we count "backwards" (from death to birth), then they both have 12 leap days in their lifetimes. (Huh? You lost me there again.) So, I am very lost lost (= lost squared). Ha ha. Would you mind explaining this again, starting from scratch? Thanks a lot. By the way, to clarify confusion: when you say the word "year", please indicate if you mean a calendar year (January 1 to December 31 of 1962, for example) ... or if you mean a full year of the person's life (December 18, 1957 to December 18, 1958, for example). Thanks again for your time and patience. Please reply at my Talk Page: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro. (Joseph A. Spadaro 14:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

Follow-up. The issue is that the 1952 leap day is not counted as part of a "year", but as a separate day, using methods 2 and 3. The period used for the final year is 12/18/1950 to 12/18/1951, which does not include February 29, 1952. Thus you have an extra leap day, not part of the "47 years". This doesn't happen with the other person because his year of death, 1994, was not a leap year. So, while both people had 12 leap days in their lives, methods 2 and 3 only count, for the person who died in 1952, 11 of those in the "years" and one as a separate day, while they count all 12 of those in the "years" and none as a separate day, for the person who died in 1994. StuRat 15:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a way we can simplify the problem, leave off the first 44 years, which contain 11 leap days in either case:

{{age in years and days|1904|12|18|1948|12|18}} =

44 years, 0 days

{{age in years and days|1946|12|18|1990|12|18}} = 44 years, 0 days

{{age in days|1904|12|18|1948|12|18}} =

16071

{{age in days|1946|12|18|1990|12|18}} = 16071

This leaves us with the portion that contains the "discrepancy":

{{age in years and days|1948|12|18|1952|03|20}} =

3 years, 93 days

{{age in years and days|1990|12|18|1994|03|21}} = 3 years, 93 days

{{age in days|1948|12|18|1952|03|20}} =

1188

{{age in days|1990|12|18|1994|03|21}} = {{age in <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MarkS/XEB/live.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">days|1990|12|18|1994|03|21}}

Now, let's break down how those calcs are done:

{{age in days|1948|12|18|1949|12|18}} = 365

{{age in days|1949|12|18|1950|12|18}} = 365

{{age in days|1950|12|18|1951|12|18}} = 365

{{age in days|1951|12|18|1952|03|20}} = 93 <- Leap day included

{{age in days|1990|12|18|1991|12|18}} = 365

{{age in days|1991|12|18|1992|12|18}} = 366 <- Leap day included

{{age in days|1992|12|18|1993|12|18}} = 365

{{age in days|1993|12|18|1994|03|21}} = 93

So, by shifting the leap day out of one of the "years" and into the days counted separately, it appears that an equal length of time has passed, when, in fact, the 2nd interval is a day longer. Note that all ranges were assumed to be from noon on the starting day to noon on the ending day (or from the same time on both days, in any case). StuRat 16:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not StuRat, but perhaps I can help as well. You've hit on the problem on the RefDesk as well as here:

• year is used as a term meaning "sometimes 365 days and sometimes 366 days, starting from an arbitrary point" (in this case, that point is Dec 18)

This gives you two different meanings of the word "year" scattered across your examples, intermingled in the final answer, with no further distinction given. That ambiguity is why you get the varied results for "years + days lived" even though it's quite easy to agree that persons A and B lived a different number of days.

Does that clarify the issue, or are you looking for a more explicit breakdown? — Lomn 13:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. I appreciate the thorough explanations. I need a chance to read through them carefully and digest them. I will see if I understand this situation, or not, and get back to you as appropriate. Many thanks again. This problem was really stumping me, and I assume that your thorough explanations will make sense of it, after I have had a chance to read/digest/process them. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 17:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

OK, once you get a chance to look it all over, please let me know if it makes sense. The source of the problem seems to be defining a year as anything other than a calendar year (Jan 1 - Dec 31), which means leap days may, or may not, be included, depending on which days are defined as the "year" and which are the extra days. StuRat 12:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Academy Award for Best Picture

To: User talk:TheLastAmigo

From: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro

Re: Academy Award for Best Picture

Hi. We keep reverting one another's edits on the Best Picture / Academy Award articles. The Broadway Melody of 1936 is not a sequel to any other film, as far as I know. Do you have different information? Please let me know. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 04:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

Hey, Broadway Melody of 1936 is the sequel to The Broadway Melody, which won best picture in 1929. MGM actually made three sequels to The Broadway Melody: Broadway Melody of 1936 (1935), Broadway Melody of 1938 (1937), and Broadway Melody of 1940 (1940). Only Broadway Melody of 1936 was nominated for Best Picture. While none of the sequels had any characters that crossed over, they were all basically remakes/rip-offs of each other, shared the same titles, were made by the same producers, and were released by the same studio. Hope that clears it up for you. TheLastAmigo 05:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the prompt response. I agree with all that you have said. However, that does not make the 1936 film a sequel of the 1929 film. It is simply, as you said, another film by the same producer, by the same studio, with a similar title. That's all. A sequel, as defined by Wikipedia -- or by the film industry, in general -- is when the second film is an extension of the story / plot from the first film. Things like The Godfather Parts 1, 2, 3 ... or The Lord of the Rings Parts 1, 2, 3. Etc. Things like that. That is, story/plot 3 derives from story/plot 2, which derives from story/plot 1. A film that is simply produced by the same producer and released by the same studio -- with no story, character, plot connection -- does not constitute a "sequel" -- as that term is generally understood in the film community. That would be tantamount to, say, calling The Passion of the Christ a sequel to Braveheart, simply because they were both produced by the same man and released by the same studio (for example, hypothetically). Thus, with the correct and appropriate use of the word "sequel", it is my information that The Bells of St. Mary's is the first sequel to be nominated for Best Picture. I have other sources that agree with this assessment. Your thoughts? Please let me know. Thanks. I would appreciate your input on this. Please reply at my Talk Page: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro 17:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

I basically agree with all of your points, but there have been sequels to films that didn't continue the stories or have any of the same characters from previous films. Case in point: the Bing Crosby/Bob Hope film Road to Singapore (1940) was followed by five sequels, but none of them used any of the same characters or continued any of the stories from previous films. The same goes for all of the films starring the Marx Brothers, the Little Tramp, and George A. Romero's Dead Series; they are all considered sequels to previous films, but they are sequels in theme only. The same could be said about Broadway Melody of 1936. It was meant by the producers to be a follow-up to the original The Broadway Melody; it used the same themes, story elements, and title (they could have just as easily called it The Broadway Melody 2), even if it didn't use any of the same characters or continue the story of the previous film. In fact, Wikipedia says the following about sequels: "A sequel is a work of fiction in literature, film, and other creative works that is produced after a completed work, and is set in the same "universe", but at a later time. It usually continues elements of the original story, often with the same characters and settings, although this is not always the case." By this definition, Broadway Melody of 1936 could be defined as a sequel to the earlier film. Another example of this would be The Lion in Winter, in which Peter O'Toole reprises his role of King Henry II from a previous film, Becket. Letters from Iwo Jima could be considered the sequel to Flags of our Fathers because Clint Eastwood meant for it to be viewed as an extension of an earlier work that he released three months prior. On the flip side, however, even though it uses the same characters, The Silence of the Lambs could probably not be viewed as the sequel to Manhunter because none of the cast (with the exception of Frankie Faizon, who plays different characters), production staff, and studio were the same.

The Passion of the Christ could not have been a sequel to Braveheart because the only link between the two films was Mel Gibson's involvement as director. With the possible exception that both Jesus and William Wallace were publically executed, they are not thematically similar. Additionally, The Passion was not meant to be viewed as a follow-up to Braveheart (and, by the way, they weren't released by the same studio. The Passion was released by Newmarket Films and Braveheart was released by Paramount Pictures). That would be akin to saying that E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial was the sequel to Jaws because Steven Spielberg was the director and were both released by Universal. I'm sure that you were aware that I wasn't making this argument and I frankly don't understand why you were implying that I was. Thoughts? Please reply at my Talk Page: User talk:TheLastAmigo TheLastAmigo 15:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have finally found the time to reply to the above. Sorry that it took so long. Thanks for your reply. I see what you are saying, and you see what I am saying. So, let me ask you this. There seem to be two "different types" of sequels. One, where the story line and plot continue ... for example, Rocky 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. Two, where there are these other more tenuous connections, but not necessarily a continuation of the story line and plot ... for example, the examples that you cite ... Broadway Melody, etc. Do you know of any different type of wording or semantics that would differentiate Type 1 sequels from Type 2 sequels? Essentially, some wording that would make this correct: The Bells of St. Mary's is the first __________ sequel to be nominated for Best Picture. (Fill in the blank.) Thanks. Please reply at My Talk Page. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

I guess that we could say that The Bells of St. Mary's is the first true sequel to be nominated for Best Picture and that Broadway Melody of 1936 is the first companion piece to be nominated for Best Picture. That would probably work best (you can also mention that Letters from Iwo Jima is the latest companion piece to be nominated).

On another interesting note, I recently discovered that The Queen is actually a sequel to The Deal and is the second installment of a planned Tony Blair trilogy by screenwriter Peter Morgan. Don't know if it should be mentioned, however, because The Deal was a made for television movie for Channel 4. The director, screenwriter, producer, and star Michael Sheen (who played Tony Blair in both The Deal and The Queen) were all involved in both films. TheLastAmigo (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners

To: User talk:TheLastAmigo

From: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro

Re: Talk:List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners#Adding actors

Hello. Thanks for your thorough and prompt reply to my question about Best Picture Academy Award nominees that were sequels. (See User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro#Academy Award for Best Picture.) I will read your response thoroughly before I reply back to you on that issue. Thanks again. Coincidentally, however -- another question just surfaced for me. And, I was surprised to see the coincidence that I should direct this, my second question, to you -- of all Wikipedians. I noticed that you had made quite a few changes to the following article: List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners. When I saw all of those new edits, especially the ones with red Wiki links, it reminded me of this comment that was made at the Talk Page for that article: Talk:List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners#Adding actors. That comment, essentially, asked editors to not add actors with red links (no Wiki articles) to that article's page. I remember thinking ... wow, all these new edits are certainly going to upset whoever made that Talk Page comment or suggestion. Then, lo and behold, I found that both parties were one and the same -- namely, you! That really surprised me. So, I was just curious. What prompted you to add all those new edits to the article, in light of your Talk Page concern? Or, conversely, why did that Talk Page issue concern you, in light of the fact that you subsequently added all those recent edits? I was just curious. Certainly, the two items are a contradiction in terms. Others might also be perplexed to see this. Perhaps you might want to add an updated comment to the Talk Page posting? Or perhaps just delete the original Talk Page post altogether? Either way, as it now stands, there are two contradictory messages out there -- both, ironically, from you. I was just curious about this, and would appreciate your feedback. I am assuming that you no longer support your own original post, and had a "change of heart" -- but I hate to assume things. So, please let me know if, indeed, you did have a change of heart on this issue. If so, I am curious why? I don't much substantively care one way or the other -- like I said, the situation perplexed and amused me -- and intrigued my curiosity as to how it all came about. That's all. Please fill me in on your thoughts. Thanks. With regard to this article (List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners), I don't really care much one way or the other -- to be honest. But, I would think it should be an article about big-name actors who have appeared in multiple Best Pictures ... as opposed to minor / extra's / "nobodies" who simply happened to chance upon minor ("extra") roles in multiple Best Pictures. In other words, it's vaguely interesting to know that a famous / well-known actor like Russell Crowe acted in 2 Best Pictures. The implication being that his great acting contributed to its Best Picture status -- in fact, multiple times. But, what's the relevance when some "no name" actor (some minor, insignificant extra) happened to chance into multiple minor / extra roles? I am just curious. Aren't all those red-link actors essentially minor extras ... insignificant "nobodies", as it were? Isn't that scenario exactly what your original Talk Page comment was attempting to address? Please let me know. Thanks. Also, I will reply to our discussion thread on Best Picture sequels in the few days or so, when I have more time to adequately do so. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 05:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC))

I added those extra names because someone else had made additions that appeared in red and then proceeded to create pages for those actors. In light of this, I decided to go ahead and add actors hoping that someone else would take the initiative to create pages for them. I also figured that if nobody did, I would erase them after a certain period of time had passed. I am the person who originally created this list, and when I first created it, I added all of those people who are listed in red. I thought it looked too cluttered, so I erased them all and added that message on the Talk Page. Upon re-editing the list, I noticed that some of the actors who didn't have Wikipedia pages when I first created the list suddenly did have pages. So after making these changes, I figured that one month was a good time-frame to leave them up and see if anyone would make pages for the actors (You'll also notice that I didn't make any additions to the list of actors that appeared in 2 Best Picture winners. Doing so would make the list way too long). Just so you know, I'm going to give it another week before I start erasing names. Hope that clears things up for you.TheLastAmigo 19:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I just came up with a better solution. The actors who were listed in red are now listed in the discussion page with an invitation to create pages for them. TheLastAmigo 21:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for the posting. Now, I see what you did -- that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. I don't really care one way or the other, I had just thought the situation odd and wanted to understand it, that's all. So, with your explanation, I now understand how this came about and what your thinking was. Two things to mention to you: (1) one of the actors -- Gino Corrado -- now has a wiki article and a blue link, yet is still listed on the Talk Page, without having been transferred into the actual article. Thought you might want to know. And (2) ... just out of curiosity ... when you created this page, did you intend for it to be about recognizable-name actors who appeared in several Best Pictures? Or did you intend for it to be about "no-name" actors / extras? I am just curious. Yes, I realize that it is a subjective distinction as to what actor is a "recognizable name" versus a "no-name" -- but I was just wondering what your intent originally was. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 06:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

Hi, it's me again. I had some free time and wanted to follow up on the above discussion. I am still curious as to your reply to the last question posed by me. Namely ... And (2) ... just out of curiosity ... when you created this page, did you intend for it to be about recognizable-name actors who appeared in several Best Pictures? Or did you intend for it to be about "no-name" actors / extras? I am just curious. Yes, I realize that it is a subjective distinction as to what actor is a "recognizable name" versus a "no-name" -- but I was just wondering what your intent originally was. Please reply at My Talk Page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

Verb tense

Re: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Verb tense

Hello. You had contributed to the above discussion thread. Thanks. I wonder if I may ask you a follow-up question or two? First, to be honest, I can make neither heads nor tails out of what anyone said in that discussion. Can you simplify the concept in a way that I can understand? Thanks. Second, you confused me on one issue, as well. You seemed to make a distinction between saying that someone "set" a record versus "held" a record. Anyone who "sets" a record also "holds" the record ... no? Am I missing something? You seemed to make a critical distinction between the two, and I guess that I am not seeing it. Let's say that John Smith sets the record for most donuts ever eaten, at 100 donuts. John Smith sets the record and he also holds the record ... no? He is the record-setter and the record-holder ... no? Or are you simply saying that, after he sets the record --- yes, he is the record holder --- that is, until the next person breaks it. Is that what you meant? That setting a record is permanent while holding it is temporary? Thanks. If you choose to reply, please do so at my Talk Page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC))

Hi. You asked about the use of the past perfect in English. Lambiam was right, it is a difficult matter. Look at Pluperfect tense and Types of pluperfect. It is much easier to discuss grammar by means of examples than it is to bandy definitions about. Your examples were fine for that, except the one had a problem aside from tense. I hope you're not insulted by this question, but I have to ask you if English is your first language. It sometimes helps me explain things if I know what a person's first language is.

You wrote:

Example A:

John Smith broke the world record in 1973 by eating 100 donuts.

Prior to that, the record-holder was Joe Blow.

(OR) Prior to that, Joe Blow held the record by eating 50 donuts.

Example B:

John Smith broke the world record in 1973 by eating 100 donuts.

Prior to that, the record-holder had been Joe Blow.

(OR) Prior to that, Joe Blow had held the record by eating 50 donuts.

The third and sixth sentences above have a problem. Taking the third one: "Prior to that, Joe Blow held the record by eating 50 donuts." Idiomatically, you can't "hold" a record "by" doing something. For instance, you can't say that that Carl Lewis held the record by running fast. He might hold the record by virtue of fast running, or he might have set the record by running fast. To get back to your example, you could say "Prior to that, Joe Blow held the record of 50 donuts."

As for the past perfect, it is tempting to use it in your examples, I'll admit. I did think about my reply to your original question on the Language Desk the next day, and I think I got a better idea of the problem you're having.

Take B: "John Smith broke the world record in 1973 by eating 100 donuts. Prior to that, the record-holder had been Joe Blow." This is possible if you mean that Joe was the first and only holder of the record before John took it away. In other words, the record-holder had always been Joe Blow. But I don't think that the past perfect on its own is sufficient to convey that meaning unfailingly; we need the "always".

If you mean only that the man who held the record that John bettered was Joe, then you have to go with A: "Prior to that, the record-holder was Joe Blow." Your faulty sentence "Prior to that, Joe Blow held the record by eating 50 donuts" can be rendered correctly thus: "Prior to that, Joe Blow held the record." I can see how "prior" seems to set up the past perfect, and it sort of does. You could say "Only that morning, Joe had been the proud holder of the donut-eating record, and now, as he watched the sun set, it seemed to be taking all his hopes and dreams down with it." The past perfect steps an event back into the past from an existing past position. It's very temporal in that it emphasizes the sequence of events and keeps them in the same time frame with each other. The fact that Joe held the record before John took it is already known; we don't need to signal the sequence with the verb tense. That's what I meant when I said "Only use the past perfect when you need to."

This stuff is hard to write about and be clear. Please don't hesitate to ask for clarification of any of the above. I strive for clarity in my writing, and I appreciate any feedback I can get. --Milkbreath (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help above. I will get back to you on this. No free time at present, though. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

Help me number 1

{{helpme}}

Can anyone answer two questions about the chart below?

• (1) How do I center the headings in the chart (that is, the words Ceremony, Year, Record Holder, and Record) ...?
• (2) Is there any way to get the contents within the boxes of the last column (Record) indented a little bit within its own box ... so that there is a little margin of white space to the left and right of the text?

Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

Ceremony	Year	Record Holder	Record
7th Academy Awards	1934 / 1935	It Happened One Night	It Happened One Night becomes the first film to win the "Big Five" Academy Awards: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, and Best Writing. This distinction is subsequently achieved by One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest in 1975 and again by The Silence of the Lambs in 1991. [1], [2], [3]
9th Academy Awards	1936	Gale Sondergaard	Gale Sondergaard becomes the first person to win Best Supporting Actress for a debut film performance when she wins an Academy Award for Anthony Adverse. This distinction is subsequently achieved by Katina Paxinou in 1943, Mercedes McCambridge in 1949, Eva Marie Saint in 1954, Jo Van Fleet in 1955, Tatum O'Neal in 1973, Anna Paquin in 1993, and Jennifer Hudson in 2006. [4], [5], [6]
10th Academy Awards	1937	Luise Rainer	Luise Rainer becomes the first person to win Best Actress in consecutive years when she wins Academy Awards for The Great Ziegfeld in 1936 and The Good Earth in 1937. This distinction is subsequently achieved by Katharine Hepburn in 1967 and 1968. [7], [8], [9]

See Help:Table for information, sorry I can't help anymore, I am not very good with Wikipedia Markup! The headings have already been centered. If you still need help, just add {{helpme}} to your page again. The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 12:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Table headings are centered by default in the "wikitable" CSS class. As for the other request, I do not believe it is possible. I just tried a fix by inserting two additonal cells on either side of the text, but the borders don't cooperate when you do that. Even if it did work, it results in some rather ugly and confusing code anyway. You're probably better off leaving it as it is. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the reply. However, I did not understand your reply. #1 ... what is a wikitable CSS class? What does that term mean? And #2 ... the column headings are not centered (at least, the last one "Record") ... even though you said they are centered by default. Can you clarify your answer, as I am now more confused. And #3 ... are you sure that nothing can be done to create a margin of indentation in that last column? Thanks! Please reply at my Talk Page. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

Sorry, I tend to be a bit bad about not explaining things at times.

1. A CSS (Cascading Style Sheet) class is a set of pre-defined settings for a web page or table. When you add {{{1}}} to the top of your table, you're telling the table to use the settings defined for a "wikitable" in MediaWiki:Common.css. That's what gives the tables that standard gray background and thin gray borders. "infobox" is another CSS class with different settings; for example, all infoboxes will display on the left side of the page by default and have no internal borders.
2. The headers appear centered on my screen, and I don't see anything that would cause it to not be so. I'd have to say it's something wrong with your browser or personal CSS settings - most likely the formal, as I'm pretty sure your personal CSS would be blank.
3. Pretty darn. I tried messing with the table on your talk page for about half an hour and all I did was make it really ugly. You might try asking someone more experienced in Wikimarkup than myself, but I'm not sure how much they'll be able to help. Sorry.

Always welcome, glad I could be of some help. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Help me number 2

To: User talk:Hersfold

From: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro

Re: Help Me - Wikitable Colors

{{helpme}}

Can anyone please tell me how exactly to add color to wiki tables ... for example, if I want one row or column to be red, another blue, etc ...? What is the exact command to do so? And where on Wikipedia do I find the colors and their codes, etc.?

When looking at some tables in Wikipedia articles, I see color commands such as the following (see below). Where on Wikipedia are all of these strange codes (that correspond to colors, I assume) listed?

• |bgcolor="#DFFFDF"|
• |bgcolor="#EFCFFF"|
• |bgcolor="#EFCFFF"|
• |bgcolor="#EFCFFF"|
• |bgcolor="#CFCFFF"|
• |bgcolor="#DFFFDF"|
• |bgcolor="#CFCFFF"|
• |bgcolor="#DFFFDF"|
• |bgcolor="#CFCFFF"|
• |bgcolor="#CFCFFF"|
• |bgcolor="#DFFFDF"|
• |bgcolor="#EFCFFF"|
• |bgcolor="#CFCFFF"|

Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

Help:Table provides directions on how to control color within a table. As for the color codes themselves, only a very few standardized colors are listed on Wikipedia - for a more useful list, check this chart: [10]. Each is a hexadecimal code used to represent the color. The first two digits control the amount of red present (with values ranging from 00 (no red) to 99 (some red) to FF (maximum red)), the second two the amount of green, and the third two the amount of blue. Here are some sample colors to help explain, but the chart linked to above should have most of what you're looking for. This is just technical stuff. The table does, however, include the code needed to make a single cell's background and a whole row's background a new color. In order to make a column a certain color, you must recolor each cell in the column individually.

Red	Green	Blue	Full code	Description	Color
FF	00	00	#FF0000	Full red, nothing else
00	FF	00	#00FF00	Full green, nothing else
00	00	FF	#0000FF	Full blue, nothing else
77	77	77	#777777	Some of each makes gray
00	00	00	#000000	No color makes black
FF	FF	FF	#FFFFFF	Full color makes white
FF	FF	00	#FFFF00	Red and green make yellow
FF	00	FF	#FF00FF	Red and blue make magenta
00	FF	FF	#00FFFF	Green and blue make that cyan
This	whole	row	is	yellow	!

Let me know if you have any questions. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! The above explanation was very helpful. There is only one thing that I did not understand. After you colored a cell with a different color, your code includes this notation: | & n b s p ; ... what does that mean? And what does that do? Thanks for your help! Please reply at my Talk Page. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

  literally means nothing. "nbsp" is an acronym for Non-Breaking SPace, and when enclosed in an ampersand and a semicolon, it becomes a Unicode character for a space that won't allow a line to break like a normal space would. For example, check the sentences below - they use only nbsp's and should run off the edge of your screen instead of forming two lines.

"The Quick Brown Fox Jumped Over The Lazy Brown Dog" is a sentence that uses every letter in the English language, and is often used by elementary or primary school teachers to check that young students are properly writing their letters. The sentence is also used frequently in typing diagnostic programs for a similar reason.

I used the code in the table I created because I needed the table to display nothing in those cells. Had I simply left them blank, I would have run the risk of the cells not displaying properly and turning out complete gibberish. Using an nbsp forces the table to display something, so it's not empty, you just can't see what's inside it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Sorry to keep bothering you! Thanks a lot for all of your help. Let me follow-up with two questions, if I may. #1 -- as far as that code of & n b s p ; ... I just want to make sure that I understand it. You are saying that that code simply "prints" a blank value in the cell of the table ... is that right? And why exactly do we want (or need) to "print" a blank cell? And #2 -- the color chart. Is there a better color chart somewhere, that has even more color choices? In other words, most of those colors are very dark and, if you use them as a background, it would simply make the actual cell text very hard to read -- if not impossible to read. I am looking for more lighter pastel "shades" so that the actual text of the cell is not hard or impossible to read as the colors of the text and background mix. So, are there more shades available somewhere ... or is this the complete / entire list of available colors to choose from? It seems to me that a great majority of those available colors (on that chart) are far too dark to be able to see or to read the actual text within the cell, if they were set as the background color. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

1. Yes, nbsp creates a blank space. As I said, it's mainly to make sure that the table displays as I want it to. Leaving a blank cell blank probably won't cause it to display incorrectly, but it could make some things not display as well as desired. For example, here, I want a table with three cells. The first cell should have a 1. The third cell should have a 3. The middle cell is the tricky one, because I want it to display nothing, but be wider than the other two cells. So, the first time I tried it, I just hit the spacebar four times, leaving four spaces in the second cell. As you can see, the table didn't recognize those spaces as anything useful and simply ignored them. Wikimarkup doesn't like whitespace, so the middle cell is really skinny and looks ugly. The second time I made the table, I put four nbsp's in the center cell instead. The table has to recognize those as characters, so it prints two spaces, giving me the appearance I want.

Table with four spaces	Table with four nbsp's
1 3	1      3
Contents of center cell
"    "	"    "

Please note that in the "Contents of center cell" section, I used additional code for the same reason, to force it to display correctly. Just ignore that additional code - the stuff in the example tables is what's important.

2. I'm sure there is, there are hundreds of the things out there. If you do an internet search for "HTML color chart" you'll get a whole list of them. Technically, there are 16,777,216 different colors you can choose from, so no chart is going to give you every color code in existence. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. - If you reply again, please don't copy the whole conversation over to my page, just your reply. I'm trying to keep the clutter down on my page. Thanks. :-)

Help me number 4

{{helpme}}

If anyone is good with tables, I have a few questions about the following table that I am attempting to create.

• Question 1 -- Is there any way to make the two tables sit directly on top of each other with no white space whatsoever separating them?
• Question 2 -- Is there any way to control/change/increase/decrease the font size of the Column Headings?
• Question 3 -- Why is it that the column widths in both Tables do not match each other exactly, when the column width settings are exactly the same in the code?

If you are responding to my request for help, please read the following note. Thank you.

Note: I am aware of how to combine these two tables into one. But, that does not address the questions I am asking above. I began this Table as one (that is, with these 2 separate pieces combined into one). For reasons not relevant at this moment, I wanted to break the table apart into the two separate tables as seen below. (One table as a "header" and one table for the "body".) In trying to do so (break the one table into two separate tables), that process raised the questions that I have posted above in my Help Me request. Can anyone provide any insight? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC))

Perhaps you should ask your question there, because that`s where they created these gimmicks.--Thw1309 (talk) 09:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No.	Name	1st Award	Year	2nd Award	Year	3rd Award	Year	4th Award	Year	Span	Age	Academy	Emmy	Grammy	Tony	Total

1	Richard Rodgers	Academy	1945	Tony	1950	Grammy	1960	Emmy	1962	17	60	1	1	2	6	10
2	Helen Hayes	Academy	1932	Tony	1947	Emmy	1953	Grammy	1976	44	76	2	1	1	2	6
3	Rita Moreno	Academy	1961	Grammy	1972	Tony	1975	Emmy	1977	16	46	1	2	1	1	5
4	John Gielgud	Tony	1961	Grammy	1979	Academy	1981	Emmy	1991	30	87	1	1	1	1	4
5	Audrey Hepburn	Academy	1953	Tony	1954	Emmy	1993	Grammy	1994	41	65	1	1	1	1	4
6	Marvin Hamlisch	Academy	1973	Grammy	1974	Tony	1976	Emmy	1995	22	51	3	4	4	1	12
7	Jonathan Tunick	Academy	1977	Emmy	1982	Grammy	1988	Tony	1997	20	59	1	1	1	1	4
8	Mel Brooks	Academy	1968	Emmy	1997	Grammy	1998	Tony	2001	33	75	1	3	3	3	10
9	Mike Nichols	Grammy	1961	Tony	1964	Academy	1967	Emmy	2001	40	70	1	4	1	8	14

Your comment on my talkpage

If you are looking for a talkpage about tables in general, you should try m:Help talk:Table. The other one is for sortable tables only.--Thw1309 (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

reply about "swl ap"

It was a big typo. I wanted to type "del sp" (deleted spaces). I deleted spaces because it supposedly reduces page size. Sorry about being a bit fussy about two spaces after a sentence. Also, if you are not comfortable that I delete lines after each section, I'll stop. It was just a minor edit. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 23:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Another comment: By the way, I really admire your work on film articles. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 23:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Well, I can -- and will -- be bothered. It is quite coincidental that you mention that. That project has been on my back burner for a long time (cleaning up this page ... and incorporating the age template). Literally, just yesterday, I started to clean it up -- using my Sandbox pages for the drafts until I have dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's. Funny coincidence that you should mention it today. So, basically, look for it here soon. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

Hello Joseph. You must have channelled your thoughts to me. Good luck and kind regards. —Moondyne 05:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Spanish

Does anyone know the Spanish word for "Chorus" ... that is, the repeated chorus that is sung between the different verses (or stanzas) in a song? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

estribillo means chorus in the sense of refrain. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for your reply --- I appreciate it. I don't know any Spanish whatsoever. Therefore, would you be so kind as to take a look at the following article: Cielito Lindo ...? Is your proposed term "estribillo" the correct word to use in the context of this article? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC))

You're very welcome, Joseph. Estribillo would apply in the article's context, yes, but I wouldn't necessarily change the word chorus to estribillo in the Spanish lyrics. It is a formal note, not part of the lyrics, something like stage directions for lack of a better word, and I would keep it in English, since this is English Wikipedia. I may be wrong of course, and I don't see WP:MOS addressing this, but there are so many policy pages. Maybe ask for some more input in the thread at the language desk or at Wikipedia:Help desk? ---Sluzzelin talk 03:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Academy Award records

Hello there! I noticed that today you started to do some cleaning up in the article List of Academy Award records. Thanks! I just wanted to make you aware of the following. The article was a mess ... and I started to clean it up. But, I never finished it ... as I am sure you can see, from the condition of the article. In any event, this is what I wanted to mention to you. The article originally was a hodge-podge of many, many, many, many different categories (oldest, youngest, most, least, longest, shortest, etc. etc. etc.). There was no rhyme or reason to anything. It was just a long list (getting longer and longer) that was not organized in any way. At one point, I took all of the records and divided them into three categories: acting records, film records, and miscellaneous records. Then -- of course -- within each of those three categories, the sub-lists started getting longer and longer and longer ... and they themselves bore no order, logic, rhyme, or reason. Ultimately, this is what I decided. There were way too many "categories" and sub-categories to really create any meaningful distinctions among each of the entries. So, I figured that the best approach would be to just list each entry as it occurred, year by year, regardless of what type of "category" it could be put into. So, I started to organize each entry in chronological order. For example: these records were established (or broken) at the 1st Academy Awards ceremony ... these records were established (or broken) at the 2nd Academy Awards ceremony ... and so on and so on. That really seemed like the only logical way to organize the various categories upon categories. So, as I was cleaning up the article, I took each entry from the long list and compartmentalized it into "what year / ceremony did this record happen" (and I also found a citation for it). That was the process that I was undertaking. I see now that when you went in to clean up, you are doing the exact opposite of what I was doing. In other words, you are un-doing all that I did. I just wanted to make you aware of this. If you continue to do so, the list will ultimately end up right back where it started ... a hodge-podge of unorganized records. Yes, some of the entries fall into nice, clean categories ... such as the ones that you already edited (age, debuts, consecutive awards). But, take a look at the remaining ones that you have not yet gotten to. For these (any many others to follow), you will need categories like "actresses who have won for a non-English speaking role" (1 entry) ... "Oscar winners who also have won a Pulitzer Prize" (1 entry) ... "actresses who have won Best Actress and Best Screenplay" (1 entry) ... "animated films that were nominated for Best Picture" (1 entry) ... etc. etc. etc. Thus, with such unique entries, each and every entry will essentially have its own "category" --- which ultimately defeats the purpose of categorization. (That is, for example, if you have 50 unique records ... each unique record falls into its own unique category ... now, you have 50 "categories" ... so, the term category / categorization renders meaningless.) So, after you have categorized the "easy ones" (age, debut, consecutive awards, etc.), it will basically become meaningless to create generic categories for the other, more unique records. In the end, you will see that most entries are rather unique and "odd" and can't really be categorized meaningfully. And, you will ultimately have as many categories as you have entries -- which is hardly a categorization method at all! Because it was so difficult to categorize these entries thematically or descriptively, that is why I sought to simply list each record by the year/date/ceremony in which the record occurred. By that categorization method, there would be no ambiguity whatsoever. Each record would fall into place in exactly one and only one unambiguous category within the list (i.e., the year that the record or notable event happened). Anyway, I wanted to present this background to you. It does not seem to make sense for both of us (and others) to be re-inventing the wheel here. What are your thoughts? What do you think is a good solution to this problem? I'd like to hear your feedback, input, etc. Please let me know. Thanks a lot. I really appreciate that. Please reply at my Talk Page --> User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC))

I don't know what the best solution is. I fear the page will wind up heading for deletion. (I actually found it when I was linking from another similar deletion nom.) I don't think that the chronological ordering is helpful, though, because it does not serve users' needs. If users are interested in oscars facts, the facts should be sorted thematically and not chronologically. Since the order of the events is arbitrary, and many records happened in multiple years I don't think sorting it by ceremony makes any sense. Ultimately, I'm not sure the article will be salvageable, but I really believe that whatever utility exists from having a page like this is diminished by the awards-ceremony-based sorting. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. You make some good points, with which I agree. Of course, this still leaves the original problem unresolved. Some of my thoughts, to follow up. (1) What was the other deletion nominee you referred to? I'd be curious to see it. (2) Why are you saying that the order of the events is arbitrary? I don't follow. If an event happened in, say, 1958 ... how is it arbitrary to list it under 1958? Or did I not understand your statement? (3) What do you mean that many records happened in multiple years? I also don't follow that. A record can be established in a given year (i.e., one specific year). Perhaps broken in a different year (nonetheless, one specific year). I am not understanding what you are saying here. Please clarify. (4) You have some good points, of course. But, what do you ultimately suggest as an alternative to the year-by-year breakdown? Themes would be helpful, agreed. Except if there are so many "themes" as to be unwieldy! I know it's tricky ... but I certainly do not agree that this article is not salvageable. Thanks! Please let me know your thoughts and ideas. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC))

Daniel Day-Lewis

Hello again. I have a quick question about Daniel Day-Lewis, with regard to his nationality. I saw that you made/edited some information about his nationality in the Best Actor article. For Day-Lewis' nationality, the article had previously listed only "British" ... and now, it lists dual "British / Irish". You made an edit summary to the effect that Day-Lewis has dual citizenship, and you even included a linked article. My question is: several weeks ago, you and I had a discussion about the distinctions between British, English, UK, etc., --- when we were talking about nationalities and flag icons. See above on your Talk Page --> User talk:Cop 663#Flag icons. I thought that "British" was a generic umbrella term that covers four nationalities: English, Welsh, Scotch, and Irish. No? Do I have that wrong? If I have that correct, why list Day-Lewis as dual British/Irish ... when British is just another (albeit more general) word that really means Irish? Our previous conversation had gotten me un-confused ... but now I am afraid that I am back to being confused. Please help! Thanks. Please reply at My Talk Page, so that I will be sure to see it. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC))

Joseph, the island of Ireland is divided into the Republic of Ireland, which achieved independence from the UK after a long and bloody struggle, and Northern Ireland, which remains part of the UK despite a long and bloody struggle by a minority of its population. I suggest you read this and repeat it three times before breakfast, or you'll get into terrible trouble if you ever go there! Cop 663 (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Academy Awards

A couple of weeks ago, User:209.163.146.95 rearranged the list of Oscar awards so that it provided "much more categorical understanding of the awards".[11] However, this user only added vertical spacing, and did not include any headers to indicate how exactly he was categorizing it. As a result, it appeared arbitrary to the average user who may not be familiar with the awards or film production in general. So therefore, I tried to assume what this user was thinking. So, yes, it is not an official categorization by the Academy. Feel free to change it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. Yes, I do remember when that original changed occurred a few weeks ago. Which, I thought, was for the better. That user did add some vertical spacing ... but he also broke the Awards List out in some categorical manner (implicitly, at least ... as you alluded to). I was only checking to see where you got your categories from, since I was unsure. To the average reader, it now looks like those many (25 to 30) Awards are indeed "officially" categorized into the 7 or 8 categories that you listed. In my opinion. I will give it some thought, as my time allows. One quick thought, though ... I myself would definitely "break out" the Writing Awards. Those are among the more prestigious of all the Oscars ... and are currently seemingly clumped into a generic "Film Production" category. Thanks for the reply. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC))

2001 Film

Hi, re. deleting the Title section, I think I said why in my edit summary but I'm happy to eleborate. The Arthur Clarke press conference and the Voyage Beyond the Stars tidbit should be cited, like anything else on Wikipedia, and the How the Solar System Was Won and "Sentinal" stuff is already covered in the Writing subsection under Production. If you can find sources for the press conference and the Voyage part, it would make sense to insert them in the Writing subsection at the appropriate point(s). That section also talks about when and how Kubrick decided on the final title. I don't think there needs to be a separate section on it, certainly not one that repeats detail already in another section. If you want to discuss further, we should move this to the 2001 talk page, where other editors can join in with their thoughts if we don't come to agreement here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I just added a reference, from Clarke's diary of the writing, at the end of the talk page for the film, but it says it was "Journey Beyond...", not "Voyage...", though he mentions disliking either choice. Don't have anything on the 1999 press conference. Cheers Wwheaton (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

80th Academy Awards article

The added spaces might have been useful under your screen, but it will not work for everybody. I hope you didn't mind that I deleted them. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 22:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the posting and for the information. I did not know that articles / pages appear differently to different people? Can you please explain? How / why would others see the page differently than I do ... and what exactly do they see? I never knew this before. Thanks. Please reply at my Talk Page. Thank you very much. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

I believe that the height and width of the browsing window can be adjusted (I am not talking about fullscreen), so the text adapts to fit in the window size. My width might have been a bit different, so it didn't look great. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 14:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

80th Academy Awards nominees and winners article

Some technical details:

• it is not really a common practice to use sentences like Please refer to the notation. Use footnotes instead.
• if there is a link to list of oldest nominees, there is no need to say that Dee's nomination displaces Jessica Tandy, since it is easy to read this following the link.
• no need to write that something is notable. If it is not, don't include it at all, that's the idea (for the notes section).
• you really don't have to list all the 10 other people with multiple nominations. Make a link to the article about that or, if there is no article, create one.

I hope you find this useful. Greetings. --Tone 23:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful tips! Seems like much of this is stylistic preference, however, and not really "right or wrong" per se. Personally, I think that the article was better with all of the notable nomination information all clumped together in one comprehensive (i.e., easy-to-read, easy-to-find) section. Now, we have the same exact information --- just that it is intermittently interspersed throughout the entire article. What sense is that? How does that help the reader, really? Sometimes, unfortunately, people (translation, xxx) don't see the forest for the trees. And they insist on mechanically sticking with some published "rule" --- just for the sake of sticking to a rule --- regardless of its effect or disfunction. Such is life. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

Template:Space

Look what I just found: Template:Space  ;-) Have fun, —Noah 06:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Major winners table

I think all the winners tables should be changed to your format, since it is much easier to read. Also, so that there can be a standard format for all the Academy Awards' articles. It seems like the format for all of the articles varies ceremony to ceremony. The structure should go as follows.

• Introduction (when it happened, who hosted/produced, brief summary of nominees and winners)
• Major winners (tables)
• Multiple nominations (tally of what films received multiple nominations)
• Multiple awards (tally of what films received multiple awards)
• Presenters and performers (list of presenters and performers; older award telecasts have info at imdb.com)
• Voting trends (analysis of nominees)
• Notable events (speical occurances or moments from the ceremony aside from montages, see below)
• Ratings
• Advertisers (OPTIONAL; if available)
• Special segments (montages and the In memoriam tribute)
• Controversies (OPTIONAL)
• Quotes (many can also be found at the imdb website)
• Broadcasters (OPTIONAL)

I'm saying their should be at least be one standard format for writing and organizing the ceremony articles.Birdienest81 (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

re:Coen brothers

Usually, all that has to be done when a page is moved is correct the major double redirects, and a bot that's programmed to skip single redirects will do the rest. I fixed the two major double redirects when I moved the page, so the bot should take care of the rest. If it hasn't gotten to the Coen Brothers redirects yet, you can always do it yourself, but it is a fairly tedious task. Given that there's between 200-250 redirects that would need to be fixed, you might want to wait for the bot. Parsecboy (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This is all new to me. So is this what you are saying? After the bot has done its job ... any article that had the link Coen Brothers in it, will automatically be changed (by the computer bot) to read Coen brothers instead? And, if so, does that also hold true for links that are formatted as follows: those guys who won an Oscar last week ...? And, finally, how long does this take to happen ... a few days, weeks, hours, what? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Yes, after the bot has finished with its job, all of the articles that have "B" right now will use the "b", including the articles with the piped links. I really can't say how long it takes for the bot to do the redirects for a specific article, but it's not really a time-sensitive issue, given that the redirects will still get the reader to the correct article. Parsecboy (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Great. Thanks for the info. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Ratings of previous ceremonies

I've found a list of previous ratings for past Academy Awards ceremonies based on audience size. It can be found here: http://goldderby.latimes.com/awards_goldderby/2008/02/oscars-tv-ratin.html Birdienest81 (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Academy Awards articles

Hi Joseph! Regarding the "names changes" of the Best Picture Award, it is indeed a funny coincidence (well, maybe not quite, since we both probably decided to do so following the discussion on the article's talk page about the "Palme d'Or" name change). Anyway, I wanted to let you know that I saw that you were trying to create sortable tables for the actors awards pages, but that some users had opposed the changes because they disliked the new layout. I myself have put in a lot of effort several months ago into turning the List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Foreign Language Film into an elegant and functionable sortable table. I took into account a lot of editors' comments, and the list was eventually elevated to Featured List status. So if it could be of any help to you, then I suggest you simply copy its layout. Speaking of something else, don't you think the "Milestones" sections are becoming too long? The information they contain is interesting so I am not suggesting it be deleted. However, I think it would be more appropriate to have such info in the List of Academy Award records. In my opinion, the awards articles should contain only a brief description of the awards as well as the list of winners and nominees. Any thoughts on that? Regards. BomBom (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ratings of previous ceremonies: Reply

Hey there, Joseph! I try to be fair and accurate as possibly. However, I get my sources from various places such as the Internet and newpapers. I also find ratings info in books as the library. However, I should warn you that all my sources post different ratings figures. One source posts the audience size for the 79th Awards as 39.9 million [12] while another lists it as 40.2 million[13]. Also, another issue is that the Los Angeles Times tends to include "double decimals" in their ratings ranks so the may list the viewers as 46.53 over 46.5.

By the way, here is a suggestion for organizing the winners of the Academy Awards for Acting. The format is similar to the article in Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actor - Comedy Series.

Year	Name	Film	Role
2007 (80th)	Daniel Day-Lewis	There Will Be Blood	Daniel Plainview
	George Clooney	Michael Clayton	Michael Clayton
	Johnny Depp	Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street	Sweeney Todd
	Tommy Lee Jones	In the Valley of Elah	Hank Deerfield
	Viggo Mortensen	Eastern Promises	Nikolai Luzhin

This is just a suggestion. But it makes it a little easier to identify the winner.Birdienest81 (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Academy Award

Can somebody help out with this portal. I'm sure there is room for improvements17:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Question about Roderick Jaynes

Thanks for the info. I also have several other important questions about the awards which were not answered in the cited website. I've posted them on Talk: 80th Academy Awards under Roderick Jaynes?. Thanks.--Snowman Guy (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Welcome

Welcome!

Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

• The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for February has been published. March's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
• Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
• Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Eve Carson AfD and the various others...

I read your argument with interest this morning, that there is a problem in determining the correct course of action for articles of this type. In many respects both sides' (non-emotive) arguments regarding notability have valid points, and there seems a confusion as to how policy is applied in this case. The result is a free-for-all where both sides quote policy without reaching a resolution. This is only the second AfD where I have seen this happen, but if you know of a few more examples, perhaps we could take this forward for some kind of policy discussion? - Fritzpoll (talk) 10:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I was so intrigued, that I have posted a policy-related discussion at the Village Pump - [14] Fritzpoll (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I had no access to my computer today. I just got in and saw your message. Thank you. It is almost 4 AM here --- so I will reply very quickly for now. I will message you back tomorrow, more fully. But, first of all -- thanks for the message. This whole situation is a real mess ... it's reinventing the wheel over and over, every single time. It's so much wasted time, energy, etc. --- it is hard to believe, for me. Off the top of my head, I know that I participated in this near identical debate when there was an AFD on the Jessie Davis article. I don't know if you recall. She was a murder victim ... Canton, Ohio ... was missing for a few weeks ... her boyfriend Bobby Cutts killed her. Anyway, that article had the same exact debate (she's notable, no she's not, yes she is, no she's not ... back and forth) as the Eve Carson one. The Jessie Davis AFD debate is here ---> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance and murder of Jessie Davis. Also, by the way ...I just noticed a day or two ago. When Eve Carson (young college female) was murdered in North Carolina, another young college girl was murdered in Alabama. Her name was Lauren Burk. I stumbled across her article, quite by chance, and I saw the very same AFD debate going on there! Take a look here ---> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Burk. Quite frustrating for both sides. Both sides have some good points. But, ultimately, it really is the same argument each time ... when a person makes the news due to their death/murder ... is this notable or not for Wikipedia purposes? The debates usually have strong advocates on both sides ... hence, no consensus can be reached ... hence, the articles do not get deleted. This is my brief reply for now. Please respond back at my Talk Page ... and I will reply more fully in the next day or so. Thanks again. I'd like to see this wheel-spinning stop for once and for all, one way or the other. Thanks. I will wait to hear from you at my Talk Page. If you get a chance, look over the AFD debates for Jessie Davis and Lauren Burk. I am sure there are countless others, but those two are at the tip of my memory right now. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

I see what you mean - almost word for word a repeat of what's happened at Eve Carson. I'd suggest making a comment to this effect at the village pump, and then we'll see where to go from there; there are already a few useful comments popping up, which should at least guide us to a course of action. - Fritzpoll (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Victims of crime proposals

I've started trying to flesh out some ideas at User:Fritzpoll/Victims_of_crime_guideline - once we have something that a number of us can agree on, I'll pop it in the right namespace and we'll see if we can settle all this madness by obtaining consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've responded to your initial comments - Fritzpoll (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOAP

Users who make "comments" like the one you re-added here are not contributing constructively or appropriately to the AfD and their posts are subject to removal. At best it's soapboxing, at worst it's racist ranting/vandalism (someone even commented on the fact that the user had a growing history of using racist language (eg) and being otherwise tendentious. Any racist remarks directed at living people, other editors, or people in general (besides those, say, quoted in an article) are subject to removal. Please do not start an edit war over this matter (consider this tacit 3RR warning, but I really hope it doesn't come to that). --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

First, in all sincerity, I do not see that as a racist comment. He is saying that "this case is a symbol of blah blah blah." You may opine that that is racist. And I opine that it is not. He is stating the fact that, in his opinion, this case is symbolic. That's no different than factually stating "The Nazi Cross is a symbol of German oppression" ... or "the KKK hood is a symbol of racial intolerance in the 60's" ... or whatever. How is it different? You may opine that this comment is racist, and others (example, me) may disagree with your opinion. And, furthermore, it is one poster's post, period. We take that for what it is worth. One man's opinion, to which he is entitled. No more, no less. Not sure who gave whom the right to censor whatever they personally feel "offended" by. If we are allowed to delete any comment that we are offended by, just sound the horn and I can have a field day. You may claim it is soapboxing, and I may claim that it is not. Why does your opinion trump mine? Your claim that it is a racist remark does not make it so. Others, like me, can -- and do -- disagree with that assessment. What makes your opinion trump mine? Why don't we turn the tables and let my opinion trump yours? How is that fair? You claim that: Any racist remarks directed at living people, other editors, or people in general (besides those, say, quoted in an article) are subject to removal. First of all, it is only your opinion that it is a racist comment. That does not make it so. Further, where in the world are you getting that he directed that toward any person? It's just his factual observation. How is that different than the Nazi or KKK example? Furthermore, his other posts may or may not use racist language --- I have not seen them. But I am addressing this post, and no other posts of his. Regardless, we will have to agree to disagree on this, I'm sure. Which leads to: whose opinion trumps whose? And, again, if we are allowed to delete anything we personally consider "offensive", we are opening up Pandora's Box. But, if that's the policy, I will have a field day, believe me. And, then, who is to tell me what I can and can't -- or should and shouldn't -- be offended by? I know what I am offended by, you don't know that. It is a subjective call. A person might easily be offended by the very notion that "Lauren Burke is not notable" type comments. He/she should have the right to delete all of those? Seems like a slippery slope --- if we can go there, I will. And I hope that you won't advocate hypocrisy ... i.e., it's OK to delete what you are offended by or opine is bad, but it's not OK for me to do so. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

???? Did you miss the racial slur??? --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I must have. Are we talking about the same comment here? Please advise. I see no racial slurs whatsoever in the post to which I refer. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

When somebody's contribution to an AfD debate (which is not a place to vote or to express personal opinions unrelated to the policy/article related to the AfD) is to say essentially "we must keep this because it is an example of negroes killing white women, which is the worst/most common racial hate crime" I think we can pretty much spot the slur and racist slant right there. And it's referring to a living person. I mean, if there was a merge discussion aboug Kobe Bryant, would you expect a comment like "we must merge because he is a negro who raped white women, which is the worst kind of rape" to be allowed to stay?? <Note: Racial slurs used in this post for example only. Please mind the context if quoting or considering this comment in the future. > --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hold your horses! First of all, what is the racial slur? That is ... what is the racial slur that he used? I haven't seen it yet. You can paraphrase anything, in any way that you desire. That's simply your paraphrase and nothing more, period. And, quite frankly, your paraphrase took a lot of liberties and was most unfaithful to the original comment. Re: "we must keep this because it is an example of negroes killing white women, which is the worst/most common racial hate crime". I did not see that anywhere. Those are your words, not his. And, I'd dare say that you are injecting quite a bit of racist comment into your remark, which in no way is an accurate reflection of his remark. If we want to paraphrase the words of others and inject our own racist words into it, of course it will come out sounding racist. So, again, what is the racial slur that he used? NOT ... what is your paraphrase / your perception of what he originally said (after being injected with all of your own biases)? Unreal. There is no racial slur. You paraphrase it to add all sorts of racial slurs that are not even there. They are there only because you injected them, of your own doing and your own biases. And then you have the nerve to complain that the original comment is offensive and racist. Simply unreal. The original comment is quite neutral and in no way offensive. After you injected your own paraphrase/bias/perception ---- uhhhhh, ya ---- then it was offensive. You made sure of that. To prove your point. So, you are taking a benign and neutral comment, injecting your own perceptions of offensiveness that were not there to begin with (other than in your own mind), and then complain that it's offensive? Unreal. My point is ... there is a great, great, great discrepancy with what he actually said ... and what you claim that he said. They do not match at all. Period. You (subjectively) read his neutral words as: "we must keep this because it is an example of negroes killing white women, which is the worst/most common racial hate crime". And, by the way, that's quite an extreme translation of what he actually said. Which says quite a bit about you ... not him. I (subjectively), on the other hand, read his words as: "this case is symbolic of an underlying sociological problem in the American system of criminal justice" (or something along those lines). That's my subjective interpretation. Clearly, very discrepant from your subjective interpretation. Mine, I think, is more faithful to the original. In your opinion, the original is so racist / inflammatory / slurred ... only because you subjectively "read" those negative qualities into an otherwise neutral and benign statement. That's my two cents. But, if you want your argument to be taken seriously, you will need to rely on the poster's original words (in which I still see no racial slurs whatsoever). And, do not rely on your "doctored up" perception of the original comments which indeed add in the very racial slurs you are complaining about! Your goal here is to rid the AFD / Wikipedia in general of racial slurs ... yet you are adding them in yourself. See the irony? Regardless, I will base my actions on what the poster actually said ... and not what you have embellished and exxagerated his words to be. Whatever happened to "assuming good faith"? I think it is quite reasonable -- and assumes good faith -- to advocate and embrace that he was saying "this case is symbolic of the larger sociological crime issue of blah blah blah". Nothing wrong with that at all. And, contrary to your opinion, it is indeed relevant to the AFD debate. That is, "this case is important and symbolic of some larger issue and hence should not be deleted". So, that's more of my two cents. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

How funny. The original had no racial slurs. You add in a bunch of racial slurs ... about which you subsequently complain and are oh so offended by. And then you add in a disclaimer to your post that says "Please all be on notice and be aware that these racial slurs are for illustrative purposes only and I myself would never, ever use such racial slurs". How funny / sad / ironic that you add such a big and bold disclaimer after adding in racial slurs to a comment that had none to begin with. In order to profess to all who enter that you would never even think of using racial slurs (after you just did so). Hmmmmm. Shakespeare once said, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

I didn't add the racial slur to his post. In fact, I have only made one comment on the AfD, involving my own rationale for deletion. Please familiarize yourself with the history before accusing me of doctoring someone else's comments to look worse than they are. The racial slur was part of the comment that was removed and that you subsequently re-added. You may "read his words" as some magical sociological statement, but his edit history is peppered (or rather, coated) with the same racial slur with the same racist slant (something that was pointed out to you). If you want to continue to let the racial slur stand, that's your business, but multiple editors have raised the objection, and you're still edit-warring over it. I recommend you stop and bring it to the AfD's talk page. Because you have decided to make this an issue of me instead of the content/issue at hand, I am going to leave it at that. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You are in no way addressing what I have stated ... and you have still not answered my question. I still have not seen the racial slur. Are you saying that using the term "Negroes" is a racial slur? If so, that's a new one on me. And - as I have said above - I have not read any of his other posts ... they may or may not be racist. I have no idea without reading them. This post in question, however, is not racist, in my opinion. Did I not make both of these points clear above? (1) Where is the slur, because I don't see it? And (2) I didn't read the other posts of his ... I have only read -- and am hereby addressing -- this individual post. Thought I was clear on both of those issues. And you either did not read or chose to ignore both. Furthermore, you clearly did not read my post above at all. Where did I say that you "doctored up" his post? Please re-read. Your responses are truly non-sensical. And non-responsive. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

I would ask that you remain civil, and hope that when someone tells you "this word is a racial slur" that you don't dismiss them out of hand when it is. I realize I said my last response was the final one, but you still insist that I am intentionally falsifying quotations/paraphrasing when the racial slur is right there for everyone (but you, apparently) to see. --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Look. Learn how to read, ok? The more I read it ... the less your reply makes any sense at all. (1) Who said that you added a racial slur to his post? (2) Where did I accuse you of doctoring someone else's comments? (3) Your calling it a racial slur does not make it so. (4) Magical sociological statement? Where did you get that? (5) I told you that I didn't read his edit history, but was only addressing this one post. (6) While multiple editors have objected to the post, multiple editors have also objected to its removal. A fact you fail to mention. (7) You truly miss the whole point ... which is less about the post itself than the questionable ability to haphazardly delete someone else's post. (8) Where was I being uncivil? (9) Just because you say a word is a racial slur does not make it so ... for the 100th time. (10) When did I dismiss you out of hand? I thought my exact words were to the effect of "Are we talking about the same posting ... What are you considering to be the racial slur because I don't see one." How exactly is that dismissing you out of hand? In fact, quite the opposite. When I am saying that I don't consider that a racial slur, you are dismissing me out of hand -- no? Good for the goose, but not the gander, correct? By the way, is there some new politically correct term de jour that we are all supposed to be aware of? If "Negro" is a racial slur, this is the very first that I have heard of it. So, don't dismiss me out of hand -- as you so readily accuse me of. I don't expect any substantive or responsive responses from you. You speak -- but don't listen, it seems. Great way to communicate. I'm not thinking I can have an intelligent conversation with you, to be very honest. You don't read what I write. You offer non-responses. Your replies do not make any sense at all. I can't waste my time trying to engage in a meaningful dialogue with one unable to do so. Sorry. But thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

What a horse's ass. The article on "Negro" that you directed me to (after 800 posts) says: Negro is a term referring to people who have skin that has high melanin content, referring to persons of African ethnic origin. Prior to the shift in the lexicon of American and worldwide classification of race and ethnicity in the late 1960s, the appellation was accepted as a normal neutral formal term both by those of African descent as well as non-African blacks. Now it is often considered an ethnic slur[1][2][3] although the term is still used in some contexts for historical reasons. Which all supports my position, not yours. Unreal. Your communication skills are quite unique. Unreal. Bye. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

Do you consider calling someone (a living person) a "negro" to be historical reasons? Was this post made before the 1960s? You can't cut out bits of sentences like that (and then accuse me of misquoting things). Please also refrain from making personal attacks and uncivil comments. Consider this your final warning. I have done so and expect the same courtesy. --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And please note that it is not my responsibility to direct you to a reference text when you don't seem to know the definition of a word. --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's end this conversation. It's clear to me that I can't engage in any intelligent dialogue with you. Thanks. And happy editing on Wikipedia. If you really want to get a point across to someone in the future, please improve your communication skills. They truly suck. Thanks. We both agree to end this conversation. Don't reply. Thanks. Best to you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

The reason for removing those comments is that the IP address in question is a one-note who was blocked for disrupting a number of articles. Thus, his opinion has no standing in wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I repeatedly pointed out that this user has a history of simply adding racist language, rude comments, vandalism, etc. User:Joseph A. Spadaro should be well aware of this already, but thanks for pointing it out again. --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

While I pretty much disagree with Joseph on everything, he is right here. Negro is not a racial slur. You are being hypersensitive. 24.124.109.67 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Help me

What is the process when an admin reaches a "consensus" of DELETE in an AfD debate ... when, in fact, there was no such consensus ... and said admin proceeds to delete the article in question? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

Discuss the matter with the closing admin. If you can't resolve your concerns, take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Keep in mind that DRV isn't a second opportunity to debate the merits of the article, but a place to discuss procedural problems with the closure and deletion. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. And what / where exactly are the rules / procedures / policies that an admin is supposed to follow? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

Take a look at Wikipedia:Deletion policy for a rough guide to the whole process. You should also read Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, especially if you think the closing admin made a mistake. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to the Lauren Burk article, maybe if it had started out as "Murder of..." things would have turned out differently. The deletionists killed it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but --- wasn't that part of the proposed dialogue? To create a name change? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

Lauren Burk

I would like some rationale as to where you arrived at a "consensus" of delete for the Lauren Burk AfD. Your only comment, in closing the debate, was "The result was delete. David Eppstein raises an excellent point." There is no rationale given whatsoever. Nor, is there even a reiteration of -- or link to -- or quote of -- David Eppstein's "excellent point". One would have to scour the entire page to find the posting by David Eppstein buried somewhere in the middle of the debate. And, his post is simply: "Delete per WP:BIO1E. Newsworthiness is not the same as having any long-term notability, and the article does not convince me that her case was particularly unusual nor that it resulted in any societal or legal changes." Fine, we realize that some editors (like David Eppstein) are not convinced of notability ... and that others are. Ya ... and ...? His "excellent point" merely states that he is not convinced of notability. This is the only rationale / explanation you have offered at arriving at a "consensus" of delete. Please advise. Please respond at my Talk Page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

Lauren Burk is a victim of missing white woman syndrome. She is notable for nothing other than being murdered. WP:BLP states that "The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Media coverage of Lauren Burk as of late has only been concerning her murder. It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to document every murder that the media decides to glorify. We have Wikinews for that purpose. David Eppstein pointed out that "the article does not convince me that her case was particularly unusual nor that it resulted in any societal or legal change". A very specific criteria for inclusion is that some sort of change resulted from this person's murder, which is currently not the case. David Eppstein observed that he did not feel that this was the case, and many people agreed with him. If you still disagree with my closure, I invite you to open a deletion review. Sean William @ 00:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It's inside-the-box thinking, harmful to wikipedia's reputation as a place people might go to for information. Wikipedia is not paper. The arguments against the article all added up to "I don't like it" or "it's about ratings", both of which defy wikipedia rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, a large amount of the keep arguments were "I like it" and "We have articles on X, why not this", arguments which are generally frowned upon at deletion debates. Not only that, but multiple single purpose accounts showed up and attempted to sway the AfD by stacking their arguments. Sean William @ 00:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What I observed in the Carson case was there are apparently editors who look specifically for stories like this, so they can pounce on them immediately, like ravenous wolves. I would like to see a policy that is more concerned with what the public might find useful, than what a few vociferous deletionists want to censor. And I would like to see the deletionists actually contribute something, instead of destroying. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting indeed. Number One: You state, "A very specific criteria for inclusion is that some sort of change resulted from this person's murder." Please direct me to exactly where that policy is. Thanks. Number Two: So then, pray tell --- what "important legal changes" occurred as the result of Eve Carson, Jessie Davis, Laci Peterson, Natalee Holloway, Elizabeth Smart, Steven Parent, etc.? Let's start with those two questions. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

Good point. FYI, I may be about to be blocked for complaining too much. Later. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is exactly the sort of argument that persuaded me to close the debate as delete. Again, file a deletion review if you would like to contest the decision. I will not reverse my close. Sean William @ 01:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What is "exactly the sort of argument that persuaded you to close the debate as delete"? That I am asking some very reasonable questions of you? I believe that I am indeed entitled to ask these very reasonable questions of you. I am puzzled as to why you are not willing to answer my reasonable questions. Please clarify. One, you quoted a policy. I asked for you to direct me to that policy so that I can look at it. I think that is a reasonable question. Remember that it was you who brought up the policy. Two: Regarding this policy that you rely on, I am curious as to why this policy is not uniformly or evenly applied ... or, rather, why it is selectively / arbitrarily / capriciously applied? Which is what drove my second question. Again, I feel that this is a very reasonable question. Policy is policy and I was assuming should be applied uniformly, not selectively, at the whim of any certain admin. I am not asking you to reverse your close. And I am well aware that I can contest your decision. I have asked you two very reasonable questions regarding your actions as an administrator: (1) please direct me to the policy you quoted and relied on and (2) please explain how / why said policy would be enforceable in one instance and not in a like / similar instance. I believe that these are two very reasonable questions to ask of an administrator who participates in a AfD deletion / closure. What I have gathered is that you are unwilling to answer my reasonable questions. You have, in fact, affirmatively not answered them. And your reply was to remind me that I can file a deletion review and that, period, you are not changing your mind. So, am I understanding your last post correctly? Please advise. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

1) Such a guideline has evolved over time as a supplement to the anemic guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable only for one event. 2) This guideline may have been unevenly applied due to the nature of a "guideline"; that is, administrators interpret it in different ways and their decisions reflect that. Sean William @ 02:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Your actions are part of the problem. There are no rules. It's all strictly the whims of whichever editors happen to edit an article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Help Me

{{helpme}}

What do I do when an administrator refuses to answer my reasonable, pertinent, and valid questions about his deleting an article under AfD and, rather than being open minded in the whole process, states "I will not change my decision, period"? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

The best place to raise a reasonable protest of a deleted page is WP:DRV. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Help Me

{{helpme}}

Where / to whom do I go to complain about how I am being treated by an Administrator? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

WP:ANI is a good place to start in such circumstances. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

Please note I have replied to your note at WP:ANI. Tiptoety ^talk 05:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

Admin Abuse in AfD

WP:AFD can be like trench warfare and I do agree about debates often favouring those who spend alot of time there and also with guidelines like notability. It is healthy not to spend too much time there and try like hell to source material you really want to keep. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This is a much larger issue than that, however. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

It might help to specify exactly what the "larger issue" is, and then to address it in the appropriate place. There was no administrator abuse here; rather there was a decision by an administrator which you did not agree with. The administrator did explain the reasoning, obscurely in the closing statement, more thoroughly in specific response to you. And the administrator is not obligated to defend the decision at all. (Unless some serious policy violation is involved, and making a decision of Keep or Delete or No Consensus would never be a policy violation, it's a decision, and decisions must be free.) However, administrators have no special "opinion" powers, they merely have a delete button so they can directly implement a Delete decision, so admins normally close AfDs, but, in theory, any editor can do it, and can implement it by finding an administrator willing to delete.

Yes, notability policy is problematic and unclear, and the result is a lot of contentious debate in AfDs. But individual AfDs are not the place to resolve this, though you are certainly welcome to express your opinion in each and every one of them. Ultimately, though, notabiity guidelines can't be clear enough to be usable without major contention simply through the accumulation of precedent, because there is so much variety of opinion among editors, so each AfD is unique.

So ... stop the complaints about the closing administrator, you are barking up the wrong tree, and the neighbors might call the police. Appeal the decision to DRV if you think it was incorrect. However, you might also, for efficiency and better chance of success, actually read and consider the delete arguments. A fair number suggested that the "Murder of X" would pass, but "X" wasn't notable. So ask an admin who provides copies of deleted articles to give you a copy, and then create an article "Murder of X," using that material. You can then create an "X" page and redirect it to "Murder of X." You might find it much more defensible, that is, apparently you would have reliable source showing the notability, and probably would get enough Keep votes to prevail, or at least to avoid deletion.

Abd (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You missed the point ... which is ... he thinks the standard is "what argument / side do I agree with" ... when the standard really is "what is the consensus of everyone else who participated in the debate". If an AfD decision merely comes down to "what does this one particular individual admin feel about the issue" ... then, really, why have an AfD debate at all? Makes no sense. Why seek consensus at all if the result is "the consensus is irrelevant, it's what the closing admin feels is the stronger argument" ...? Makes no sense whatsoever. And, quite frankly, if he's changing standards at his whim and ignoring consensus and merely pushing his own bias and agenda ... how is that not an abuse of admin duty? It's the very definition of abuse. No? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC))

WikiProject Films coordinator elections

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oscars for comedy performances

Hi. To be honest, I really don't care which winner is listed --- Kevin Kline or someone else. I just thought that the whole thing was getting out of hand. The whole premise of the "criticism" was that comedy actors are at a disadvantage because comedy roles "never win Oscars". Then, we promptly went on to list 25 examples of where comedy roles did indeed win Oscars. It was silly and sounded stupid. To claim one thing and then provide evidence of the opposite. So, I pared the list down to 8 good examples -- 4 males, 4 females, 4 lead roles, 4 support roles, 4 older winners, 4 recent winners, etc., etc., etc. So, I guess what I am saying is: why didn't you weigh in at the Talk Page? It seemed a non-controversial proposal ... so I went ahead and made the edit. I am just curious. You seem to believe strongly that Kline is a good example and, yes, he probably is. I'm just curious why you didn't weigh in, that's all. I am merely foreseeing many more edits (adding in this good example and adding in that good example) ... such that the list goes right back up to 25 winners when we claim "no one from comedy ever wins ... isn't this unfair?" ... So, please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

It doesn't matter to me who gets listed which is why I dodn't comment. In fact, the entire sentence is OR and POV and needs a citation. However, if you're going to include a list actors who won Oscars for comedic roles, it stands to reason that Kline, one of the few to win for a purely comedic role, should be listed. Most of the films listed are light hearted dramas, dramas with a few comedic moments or romance film whereas A Fish Called Wanda is an actual comedy film. We do need a source though, I remember seeing one that listed Kline, Jessica Lange and someone else, but I forget where I saw that. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I really don't care who gets listed, either ... as I already mentioned. And, yes, your point about Kline makes a great deal of sense --- and I can respect that. Two things, though. One: You are saying that we need a source / cite. About what? The fact that these are comedy roles? Or the fact that few comedy roles ever win Oscars? I didn't understand your comment about sources. Two: To be honest, your posting (above) is actually quite contradictory. You state that "it doesn't matter to you who gets listed which is why you did not participate in the Talk Page discussion" ... but then, you affirmatively go and change the listing not once, but twice. I am merely pointing out that that is a contradiction. You either (a) don't care about who gets listed, as you claim or (b) you do indeed care about who gets listed, enough so that you affirmatively go in and make some changes to the listing. You can't claim both "a" and "b" ... as they are mutually exclusive. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC))

New policy proposal that may be of interest

I'm tapping this message out to you because you were involved at the AfDs of Eve Carson or Lauren Burk. Following both of these heated debates, a new proposal has been made for a guideline to aid these contentious debates, which can be found at WP:N/CA. There is a page for comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions should you wish to make a comment. Thanks for your time, and apologies if this was not of interest! Fritzpoll (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Edits such as this one violate our policies on civility and personal attacks. Please refrain from using such language in the future. Thanks! Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

(1) How so? (2) If policy re: consensus can be violated, can't the civility one also? Or do we pick and choose which are violatable and which are not? Fill me in! Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

And (3) Why are you deleting my post that contains valid questions? What policy does that violate? Lemme know. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

No, you can't ignore our policy on civility. I reverted your post to ANI because you removed a dead discussion from the archives and then personally attacked other editors. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. I see what you mean! Thanks! Hmmmmmmmmm ... civility is a pretty broad and general term. Would it be considered civil for one editor (hypothetically, let's say, you) to just go in and remove / delete the posts of another editor (hypothetically, let's say, me)? Or is that considered uncivil, as well? That is, if I personally and subjectively feel that someone's post violates civility, I can go in and simply delete it just like that, without myself then being accused of incivility? Am I correct? Wow, Wikipedia is so confusing. Need your help here. Please explain this to me. Thanks in advance! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

This last comment is not civil. I think that if you read the policy you will see why. And, no, I do not think that I was acting in an uncivil manner by removing your edit to ANI. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but. You have clearly avoided my question altogether, silly! I am not asking what you think. I am asking what is the scenario if I think it is uncivil? You see? Just like, say ... maybe I did not think my post was uncivil, and you did think so. See? We can both see things differently! And what you think isn't the final answer, simply because it's what you think! Right? So, back to my original question, then ...? What say you? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Hello

Please remove inapproriate language from your edit here before you want someone to discuss that with you. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

OK! Great! Which part exactly is "inappropriate" and by whose standards exactly? Thanks. Let me know, so that I can do whatever it is that you command / demand of me. And the words that you want removed, please let me know what I can / should / am allowed to replace them with? Thanks for your help! And your concern! Much appreciated! Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

I believe "h****'s a**" is inappropriate. Even if it is appropriate to your standards, nobody would listen to you after that. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny premise that anyone was listening prior. Thanks for the laugh! Really. But, getting back to business ... you didn't answer my question. What word will you allow me to use in its place? Thanks! Let me know! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Funny premise that anyone was listening prior. Thanks for the laugh! Really. But, getting back to business ... you didn't answer my question. What word will you allow me to use in its place? Thanks! Let me know! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

It's cool that you found that 'funny'. At least you could laugh ;) Anyway, there are no words allowed and others not. We don't have time to create a page listing all the **s words in the world in order for everybody to act civily. It's only common sense.

P.S. Everybody was listening prior and probably no one disagreed about closing the thread. Please follow Theresa's advice at the AN/I and happy editing. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. Gonna whine some more? Let me know! Thanks! JuJube (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Help Me

{{helpme}}

Hi! What do I do if I feel that someone (JuJube) is being uncivil toward me? And posting uncivil messages on my Talk Page? How do I tell on them? How can I get them in trouble? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Simple-Ask an administrator if it is appropriate behaviour then the administrator might warn the user or block them. Are you going to archive your talk page son?. Chubbennaitor (leave me a message!) 08:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaving this open so an administrator might see your help notice and do more than me. Chubbennaitor (leave me a message!) 08:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

How do I know who is an administrator? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

You want to file a complaint, go ahead. I don't think much time will be spent on someone who's collectively called the admins "horse's asses". JuJube (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

So let me be clear. Just wanna make sure that I understand what you are saying. OK? Thanks! You are saying that -- from this point forward -- no administrator will spend any time with me or offer me any assistance whatsoever, regardless of the fact that I may legitimately have a need for help? Correct? That is how I am reading your post above. Lemme know if I misinterpreted what I thought was pretty basic English in your post. Thanks! Hmmmmmmmm. If that's the case, that would cause me grave concern. Wouldn't that then mean that I would be an open target for abuse and incivility --- much like the incivility from you --- and yet have no recourse whatsoever? Is that how Wikipedia works? Just making sure I understand your post. Lemme know! Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Joseph, I think I am trying to help you here and you are still asking questions like "how can i get them in trouble". We are not here to get people in trouble. Not at all. We work in collaboration and admins can be reported of course but if the community sees no problem or violation was made then we move on. This is a tool you can use to find out who is an admin and who is not. Again, please stop it and get back to work. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Go to Special:Listusers and search for a user's name - if they're an admin, it will say so (eg. me, here. Or just go to this page - Wikipedia:List_of_administrators. Jujube's comments aren't uncivil, in my view, especially not when set against your own on WP:ANI. I'm removing the {{helpme}} tag. _GB^T/C 08:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

To be very frank, I really don't care what you think. I think he/she's being uncivil. Period. That is independent of what you may think of my postings. Or are you saying that it's OK to be uncivil to another who we subjectively consider uncivil? Is that what you're saying? It's uncivil, period. Whether you think so is irrelevant. Thanks, any way, for your "help". And --- since your help was anything but ... I have replaced the Help Me tag. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Furthermore, Mister "Helpful" ... how is that not uncivil? Give me a break. Seriously. Someone has a legitimate complaint. Whether it's handled appropriately or not. It's not uncivil to call them a whiner and to mock them as "whining"? If you believe that, and you are an admin, I will need to address this point with some one for sure. That's a laughable position to take. Or, if it's OK ... just let me know. I too can have a field day on every one's Talk Page, calling them a whiner when they issue a legitimate complaint. Lemme know which way this should go? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Hi Joseph. Wikipedia actually doesn't have any methods to "get people in trouble", but if there's a problem, there are a lot of people who would be willing to help you. In general, if you feel someone is being incivil, you can start by asking them to stop, or asking them to retract their statement. If an editor is continually attacking other editors, they may be blocked under Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks. If its a bit more complicated than clear personal attacks over a short period and more like a pattern of incivil behavior over a long period, its better dealt with using a request for comment where you invite the community to look at and comment on another editor's behavior. I hope that helps answer your questions about dealing with incivil behavior, I'll watchlist this page so you're welcome to ask further questions if I can help with anything else.

Just as a personal note, I find that incivility happens from time to time when editing Wikipedia. Often, if you ignore the comment, the editor will stop rather quickly, so walking away from disputes that have become too heated may be a good option at times. Shell ^babelfish 08:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Help Me

{{helpme}}

I need to speak with an administrator. Another administrator (Gb) is explicitly allowing and implicitly encouraging an editor (JuJube) to be uncivil toward me. I would like this clarified for me. See above discussion for more details. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Joseph. First, you haven't recognized your inappropriate edits. Second, Theresa asked you to discuss with her your issues but you haven't done it yet. Instead you are still here waiting for another admin apart from Gb to help you. Theresa is an administrator and she already told the admin that is was not appropriate. So, can you get back to work and let this go on? Thanks.

By the way, I am an administrator as well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

And how / when / where was I notified that Theresa "already told the admin that it was not appropriate"? And which inappropriate admin (take your pick) are you referring to? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Please calm down. It is not an obligation for an admin to notify someone that he warned someone else. Discuss in a calm way please. Both of you have been warned and that's the end of this story. There are some answers to your questions [Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Paul_Scofield_and_Sir_Thomas_More here]. They are worth reading. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This has, because of your actions, spiralled ridiculously out of control. You have a problem with a page that has been deleted. You have been told, numerous times, to take it to deletion review. You don't. Instead you claim admin abuse (when there is a perfectly adequate means of recourse awaiting you at WP:Deletion review if only you would take it), and it is dealt with (with the consensus that it was not admin abuse) at WP:ANI. You then repost your issue to WP:ANI because you dislike the response you got the first time around, and because you get the same response ("If you think an admin incorrectly closed an Afd, the proper venue for review is WP:DRV. Is it there?") you descend into posts that are less than constructive ("oh Great and Might ones", "group of third-graders", et al), then are surprised when someone characterises your attitude as whiny, and react like a three year old. I mean, seriously, "I'm telling on you, I'm telling on you!"...and you call the admins a bunch of third-graders? I wasn't allowing JuJube to be uncivil, nor was I encouraging it - when I see uncivil comments from him, I will respond accordingly. I have yet to see them.

In the meantime, you've now crossed the line into the realm of being disruptive. Take it to deletion review, or stop complaining about it. Your choice. I'm removing the helpme tag again, as that's a decision only you can make. _GB^T/C 08:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and your complaint is only legitimate when you deal with it in a legitimate manner - which, in case you missed it the first five or so times, is taking it to deletion review. _GB^T/C 08:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear GB ... as I am specifically complaining about you ... your "conclusions" have little weight with me in this discussion. Thanks for the offer, however. And you removal of the "help me" tag is disingenuous at best, pompous at worst. Thanks. I will deal with others in complaining about you. And, for what it's worth --- you have 100% skirted all of my questions and issues. And, then you go ahead and delete the Help Me tag? As if I was "helped" by you and your non-responsive reply? Unreal! Thanks for your concern! Now, leave me alone. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Hello again; could you be a little more specific about what someone can help clarify for you? You mentioned one editor being uncivil and another not stopping or encouraging them; are you asking what you should do now, or am I missing the question entirely? Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 09:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Best Picture

Hi. I saw that you edited the Milestones Chart for the Best Picture Academy Award article. You added a notation like "border = 1" or something like that. What exactly does that edit do? I did not notice a difference in the chart at all. Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Sorry about that. I had numerous Wikipedia sites open and I accidentally edited it into the wrong post. I'm terribly sorry for the inconvenience and I will take better care next time. I'm unsure if I fixed that up or not. Again, sorry about that.Chocaholic29 (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Why your allegations of admin abuse were "ignored"

Hello Joseph, you have started a thread on WP:ANI, alleging that a certain action of an admin was abusive behaviour. The original thread is now archived here. You got responses from four people: One asked for more details, and three said it was not abuse, and explained why they thought so. This noticeboard is being read regularly by hundreds of contributors to the project, with wildly varying backgrounds. Apparently none of them felt that the responses that you received were wrong to the point that it was necessary to contradict them. This is an example of what is called a consensus on Wikipedia.

You are not happy with the result, and being confused because the thread was archived, you asked again on ANI. At the time that I am writing this, you have received responses from seven editors, all of them clearly agreeing that it was not abuse; some of them are obviously getting irritated. Since there is no overlap between the people replying to those two posts, that's 10:0 with one abstention. (I am not counting you, and I am not counting the admin you accused and who didn't feel it necessary to reply in such an obvious case.) Again, nobody felt the need to step in on your side.

You know how to drive on a motorway, right? Now suppose you do everything right, and suddenly you find yourself in the rightmost lane in the situation of this picture. What do you do? --Hans Adler (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Your options

Since you've more of less ignored what everybody has been saying to you up to this point at WP:ANI, I hope to summarize it in a few concrete options that you have here.

1. You may drop the matter.
2. You may subject the article to a deletion review.
3. You may file a request for comment against me in hopes of gaining even more input on my "abuse", although you will most likely hear more of what has already been said.
4. You may file a request for arbitration, although the arbitrators will most likely not accept a case that has not made any attempt at dispute resolution. Sean William @ 16:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You asked for help

I'm willing to help you in any way I can. I've been out all day so I don't know what has been resolved in the meantime but if you still have questions fire away. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Academy Award for Best Picture

I did not understand this edit. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

When the edit prior to that edit (which you reference above) was made, I had no idea what the effect of the prior edit was. So, I asked the editor who made the edit. He/She said that it was done by mistake. So, I reverted his/her mistake. This (below) is the conversation between me and the editor. Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

Hi. I saw that you edited the Milestones Chart for the Best Picture Academy Award article. You added a notation like "border = 1" or something like that. What exactly does that edit do? I did not notice a difference in the chart at all. Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Sorry about that. I had numerous Wikipedia sites open and I accidentally edited it into the wrong post. I'm terribly sorry for the inconvenience and I will take better care next time. I'm unsure if I fixed that up or not. Again, sorry about that.Chocaholic29 (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, then I will self-revert. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Do you have any idea what that command is supposed to do? That "border=1" command. I saw no difference at all in the Chart ...? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

Smiley!

WarthogDemon 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. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-WarthogDemon 04:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Help Me

{{helpme}}

Does anyone know how to fix this problem? I do not. The following code appears in some articles: ... { { CapPun-US } } ... and the effect is to produce the following chart (below). In the chart, the state name "Connecticut" appears twice. How does one of those names get removed? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

Templates, like this one, can be found with the Template: prefix. For example, this one is at Template:CapPun-US, where you can edit the template itself. This particular template also has a nice feature - those tiny letters in the upper left corner lead you to view the template (v), the discuss the template at its talk (t) and editing the template (e). I've gone ahead and made the change you requested so that Connecticut only appears once now.

For more information on templates, you may wish to look at Help:Template or Help:A quick guide to templates. Thanks for pointing out the error in the template :) Shell ^babelfish 00:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

{{dts}}

{{dts}} was changed to {{dts2}} because the date format for {{dts}} was changed in order to comply with ISO 8601, the date format used on Wikipedia. If you want, I can revert the change that I made - I made it because if it was not changed then it would be broken after the template changed. Gary King (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not understand a word of that. I am not a computer techie or a programmer. I have no idea what you just said (above). Can you please explain what this is all about in terms understandable to me ... or direct me to someone who can do so? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC))

The way that you use the template has changed. Gary King (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You're very skilled at explaining things. Thanks. Now, it's all cleared up for me. Thank you. Please take note of sarcasm. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC))

The placement of the year and the day have changed when using the template. It now interprets the first parameter as the year, the second parameter as the month, and the third parameter as the day. In order to use dates that are BC, use a negative year value. Gary King (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Help Me

{{helpme}}

When you create a Wikitable chart, it basically looks like this (below). How can I find out exactly what color code is used by default for that pink/red background in the first row -- the row that designates the column headings? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

No.	Name	Date of Execution	Victims	Governor
1	Michael Ross	May 13, 2005	Robin Stavinsky, April Brunais, Wendy Baribeault, and Leslie Shelley	M. Jodi Rell

It's actually a grey color (not pink/red) and I belive it's #F2F2F2 in hexadecimal. Voyaging ^(talk) 05:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there some way to find out for sure what exactly the code is? By looking at the computer programming code for the Wikitable default chart set up or what-have-you? Thanks. Plus, I am pretty sure this is in the red/pink family --- most other colors with a beginning of "F" are in the pink/red family. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

It's a hexadecimal colour code: hence you can split it into 3 sections eg. F2 F2 F2, and each section represents Red, Green, and Blue respectively. It counts in base-16, hence it would go 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F, 10, 11, etc. FF means that you can have no more of that colour (hence FFFFFF is white), and 00 means there is none of that colour at all, (hence 000000 is black). The colour definitions for this are in the cite-wide css file, MediaWiki:Common.css - under the section "wikitable/prettytable class for skinning normal tables". Look for the part with "th" in the group - "th" stands for table header. There, you can see " background: #f2f2f2;". I hope this helps. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 08:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Academy Award for Best Actress

An anon is making a lot of formatting changes to the article, as well as adding tables to the individual nominees' articles. My first thought was that their changes were vandalism, but when I looked closer, it appeared that they were valid edits, so I reverted myself. Corvus cornix_talk 16:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Help Me

{{helpme}}

No.	Name	Date of Execution	Victims	Governor
1	Michael Ross	May 13, 2005	Robin Stavinsky, April Brunais, Wendy Baribeault, and Leslie Shelley	M. Jodi Rell

Let's say that I create a Wikitable chart like this one above. I don't know much about these Tables ... but it is my understanding that using the computer "command" of class="wikitable" basically sets up a generic format chart / table. Thus, by default (through using that command, I guess), the header rows of the chart are automatically given that pink/reddish background color (hex code F2F2F2). Is there any way to change that color ... such that I have this same exact chart as above, with the only difference being a change to the background shading color of the top header row? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

see, Help:Table#Color.3B_scope_of_parameters, remember that the less color the better readable. Cheers. Mion (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but ... I could not understand a word of that link. Can someone just take this chart below and change / enter / edit the computer commands which will create a different color (any color at all) header row? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

No.	Name	Date of Execution	Victims	Governor
1	Michael Ross	May 13, 2005	Robin Stavinsky, April Brunais, Wendy Baribeault, and Leslie Shelley	M. Jodi Rell

Thanks ... but I guess that I was not real clear above (twice) in what I was looking for. I want the very first row to change its color. The very first row is the row that currently has a light pink/red background shading. The very first row is the row that contains the column headers. The very first row is the row that has the words "No.", "Name", "Date of Execution", "Victims", "Governor" in it. Can someone please help? If so, please modify the Chart below. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

No.	Name	Date of Execution	Victims	Governor
1	Michael Ross	May 13, 2005	Robin Stavinsky, April Brunais, Wendy Baribeault, and Leslie Shelley	M. Jodi Rell

I know, but you already got the answer from Stwalkerster and the helpdesk is for questions about wikipedia, not for template hacking. Mion (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like you to clarify what exactly are you talking about? Number 1 ... where did Stwalkerster answer this question? The question above (from several days ago) was a completely different question. Let me spell it out. First question (above) ... "What is the hexadecimal color code?" Second question (currently) ... "How do I change the colored heading of a chart?" So, please clarify your statement that says, quote, "you already got the answer from Stwalkerster". Your statement has confused me and I would like you to clarify that statement. Thanks. And Number 2 ... what exactly are you talking about with template hacking? I would like you to clarify this as well. I want to create a chart with a different color heading. And, quite frankly, I actually thought that that was relatively clear from my posts above ... no? So, please clarify for me where does this idea of template hacking enter this conversation? That is, you made the following statement and I am confused by it and I am asking for clarification. You said, quote, "the helpdesk is for questions about wikipedia, not for template hacking". My thinking as of this moment --- which is why I am seeking clarification --- is that the following things have transpired: (a) you are answering different questions other than those that I am actually asking; (b) nonetheless, you are removing my "help me" template; (c) you are accusing me of asking questions which already have been answered; and (d) you are accusing me of attempting to hack templates. So, before I concretely adopt that those four items have in fact transpired --- and in the interest of assuming good faith --- I am asking for clarification of all of these issues. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

Personally, i think it is disabled (colors in headers), i know cross templates which are white headed in EN and light grey in NL, Cheers. Mion (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Mion's right. You could hack something together, like this maybe:

No.	Name	Date of Execution	Victims	Governor
1	Michael Ross	May 13, 2005	Robin Stavinsky, April Brunais, Wendy Baribeault, and Leslie Shelley	M. Jodi Rell

but (depending on where you want to do this) it might be best just to leave the default colors. Algebraist 10:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Algebraist is right, for use of colours on Wikipedia you can have a look at Wikipedia:Colours. Mion (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Help Me

{{helpme}}

A user (User:Meachly) is harrassing me and changing literally every single word that I type in an article (Abigail Taylor). What to do? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

Bring it up on his talk page and try to sort it out. If that doesn't work, WP:RFC or WP:ANI will work. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 06:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Meachly is harrassing me. I need intervention. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

See WP:Dispute Resolution Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 07:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Abigail Taylor

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Abigail Taylor. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Meachly (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I very strongly suggest that you leave me alone. I very strongly suggest that. I promise you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

I strongly suggest you stop reverting before you get blocked for violating WP:3RR --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for you offer to help! Much appreciated! So, how is it exactly that I am reverting and she is not? Help me understand. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

You have reverted two editors now. She has likely not reverted after the 3RR warning you gave her. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

A user (Meachly) is harrassing me. And, to contravene the 3 revert rule, has enlisted a friend (Redrocket) to make her edits ( or has made her edits under a different account name ). Or -- perhaps -- it is entirely coincidental that some independent third party has reverted the same exact 3 edits (in one fell swoop, no less) that Meachly has been edit warring about? Although, I suspect the latter is statistically impossible? Please advise? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

Furthermore, I never gave anyone a 3RR warning. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

I see that (you copied the warning here onto her page). So she has stopped reverting on her own. Yet you continue to revert. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Let's clarify. She placed that on my Talk Page ... ok, buddy? And when I replied to her, I cut-and-pasted the reply to her Talk Page. That's number 1. And I explained above that she is indeed reverting (or, alternatively, some statistically impossible event is occurring in which some one "else" in the world (Redrocket) wants the very same exact 3 edits as Meachly wants). Please reply. Thanks. You seem very helpful! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

Gee, I wonder why. It couldn't be that you're 100% wrong. No, that couldn't be it, he must be a sockpuppet! JuJube (talk) 07:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I am 100% wrong? How interesting. How is it that the very next post on the talk page agrees with me and refutes Meachly? How could that possibly be ... if, as you say, I am 100% wrong? What are you, some high school sophomore? Loser. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

Congratulations on missing the point entirely, although I guess that may be expected because as other people have started to note, you may not be all there upstairs. But the point was that because someone believes you're wrong, doesn't mean they're a sockpuppet of someone else who believes you're wrong. JuJube (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, you miss the point, you oaf. Now, really ... you don't find it quite odd that the next person (either a sock puppet or a best freind / accomplice of the problem user) makes the very same exact 3 edits that Meachly wanted? ... and makes them within 5 seconds of Meachly coming upon her third (unallowed) revert? ... and, prior to this, never once complained or had any input whatsoever on these edits? Hmmmm ... that does not strike you as odd? Rather, in your simple mind, some independent third party editor, completely out of the blue, at that exact moment in time, suddenly developed some passionate interest in (coincidentally) the exact THREE edits that Meachly was crying on about? Wow, your mind truly believes that? You are more of an oaf than I thought ... which is an insult to oafs, actually. You know as well as I do that you do not believe that in your heart. But, you have to save face here and you are unwillinig to eat your portion of humble pie. Oh, well, you can always read interesting articles, such as fellatio. Now, leave me alone. You truly are not worth the breath or the typing efforts. If you want to get one last word in, to feel superior, and to empower yourself, go ahead. Then, we will call it a day. And both agree that you're an oaf, at best. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

If another editor thinks her edits improve the article they can certainly put them back in. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Get a f**cking life, ok? You mean that she didn't just ask her friend to make the exact 3 edits she wants? All within like, what, 5 seconds? Give me a f**cking break. What do you think, Mister Genius, ... some independent third party editor ... completely out of the blue ... came in ... exactly 3 seconds after Meachly ... and made the exact 3 edits that Meachly wanted? Ya, OK. What's your f**cking IQ, dude? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

Question

• Is this a threat? JuJube (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Who are you? And what makes you say that? Thanks for clarifying! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

Please be aware

...that this edit here represents a personal attack on another editor. Article talkpages exist only for the purpose of improving articles, and it's not appropriate to use them for making comments about other editors. Doc Tropics 07:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

How is that a personal attack? Thanks for clarifying for me! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

Help Me

{{helpme}}

A user (Meachly) is harrassing me. And, to contravene the 3 revert rule, has enlisted a friend to make her edits ( or has made her edits under a different account name ). Or -- perhaps -- it is entirely coincidental that some independent third party has reverted the same exact 3 edits (in one fell swoop, no less) that Meachly has been edit warring about? Although, I suspect the latter is statistically impossible? Please advise? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

Could you stop being a tedentious, rude jerk? Let me know! Thanks. .JuJube (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify? Thanks. Also, does Wikipedia have an article on felatio? I can't find it? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

There it is! Never mind! I found it! Sorry for the miscommunication ... I was spelling the word wrong! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

This post tells me you're either extremely naive or just here to troll, and given your penchant of wasting people's time, I'm going with the latter. JuJube (talk) 07:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JuJube! You are certainly entitled to your opinion! Good for you! And I, to mine, correct? Did you read that article? It's very interesting! Thanks for your help and your concern! Thanks! You have been very helpful! Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

Follow the instructions here if you think they might be a meatpuppet/sockpuppet. Also, on a side note, you may wish to consider archiving your userpage. It's very long. Mⁱc_rochip ⁰⁸ 08:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

3RR report

I'm sorry that you think I'm harrassing you. When you say things like "why are you being such an f----king a---hole" [15], I feel offended. But notwithstanding that, I think you haven't shown any attempt to collaborate with me or other editors in the edits for [[Abigail Taylor]. So I've filed a complaint against you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. If you think I have acted out of turn, I suggest that you take that up with the administrator who deals with it. I'm sorry we haven't been able to get along. Meachly (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Leave me alone. But do read the interesting article on fellatio. Thanks! You seem like a very nice person. Your 3 days of tenure on Wikipedia have helped us greatly! Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

Hey Friend!

Heya! Could you please stop being a fucking trouble making jerk. People are getting pissed off by your constant trolling and general irritating attitude. symode09's 07:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Read fellatio. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

How about read People who shouldn't be allowed on a computer. JuJube (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I could give a flying f*ck what you think. But, please, do read fellatio! Thanks! You are very helpful! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

I know what it is. Unlike you, I don't need to read up about it on wikipedia because, I learn from Real Life. symode09's 07:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Wow, you got me! Geez, you win! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

When it comes to dealing with people like you, nobody wins. JuJube (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it must be great to always be right - like you, huh? Wow, I wish I could be like you -- always right. Did you read fellatio yet? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

Joseph, since you enjoy reading fellatio so much, I'm sure you will really enjoy zoophilia, correct? 203.33.162.65 (talk) 08:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please Read Carefully

WP:CIVIL - this is not a suggestion, or guideline, but policy. Repeatedly making uncivil comments will lead to blocking. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't selectively enforce policy on me -- and disregard when others violate it against me. Don't. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

Thanks! By the way, you have been very helpful. In my efforts to comport with any and all Wikipedia guidelines, please clarify for me exactly what you are referring to? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

This [16] and this [17] for starters. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm. And did you see my question above? How I am trying very hard to comport with all your rules? But, you are confusing me. So, I feel like you are selectively enforcing these rules against me, but not others. Or, in the alternative, you are confusing me about the rules. So, I cannot use asterisks in place of a swear (example: f**ck) ... yet others can swear on my page ("dumbass", "fucking")? See, now that's confusing! I am sure you agree! And, I am not allowed to ask about whether or not Wikipedia has articles? That's also confusing! How is that uncivil, kind Sir? Please clarify? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

I've already indicated to symode09 that their edits aren't helping matters. As for your pointers to fellatio - we're not idiots here. We know what you're trying to say and playing the innocent won't help you should an admin decide to look into your incivility. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, really, is that so? Very interesting, indeed ... and I note that you avoided answering all of my questions. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

Again, Mr. Spadaro reinterpets "answering his questions" to mean "giving me the answers I want". I'm really done with you as you bring out the worst in editors, but if I see you kicking up a fuzz again, expect everyone to be reminded about how much of a troll you are. JuJube (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I must do a 180 here. JuJube is 100% right and I am 100% wrong. My sincere apologies. Thanks for your help! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

YOU, dumbass. I am established (well, reasonably) - want to chat about it? go onto the wikipedia chat room and speak to brown_cat :) symode09's 07:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Civility warning

You may wish to note that chronic rudeness towards your fellow editors is grounds for temporary blocking. You may also wish to note that you're just about ONE post shy of hitting the "chronic" level. Stop insulting people. Now. --erachima formerly tjstrf 08:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, OK. You're 100% right and I am 100% wrong. Is that what you want to hear? Let me know. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

And, PS ... you had better take note of my allegations of the rudeness and incivility toward me. If you are claiming that this is a one-way street, just let me know. Because then we will have some big fish to fry. Therefore, while we are at it ... please direct me to where you have posted this similar warning to the others who have been uncivil toward me. I'd like to see those, please. Please direct me with correct links. OR, in the alternative, make the claim that others have not in fact been uncivil toward me and thus do not warrant a similar warning. Let's cover both grounds. Because which of these two positions you assert will be very interesting to me indeed. Thanks for your help and concern. Thanks for trying to make Wikipedia a better place. Thanks for trying to assist me. You seem like you will be very helpful indeed in my above requests. Please advise. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

erachima was just trying to issue you a friendly warning. Simply because other people were uncivil to you is no excuse to respond in kind, especially when it was your edit warring and uncivil comments to them started the matter in the first place. Redrocket (talk) 08:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

... which does not answer my questions, I am sure you agree ... (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

Furthermore ... (1) I am rather skeptical of your characterization of his post as "friendly advice". Please go back and re-read it. It was anything but friendly. It sounded like he was scolding and berating a small child. Sounded like a heavy-handed warning to me. "Stop insulting people. Now." If that is your definition of "friendly", then we will have to agree to disagree on the definition of "friendly". And (2) I find it interesting that you characterize in your post, as a premise, that -- factually -- I was edit warring. Interesting premise, and/or interesting conclusion. Your post is quite filled with bias and I am skeptical of its intent. But, thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

Joseph, you're misunderstanding some pretty basic things here. Let me try explaining: on Wikipedia, having slightly suboptimal wording in an article is far less of a problem than having a massive argument over that wording is. There are a variety of reasons for this, but at its most basic, it's simply a whole lot easier to tweak the wording later (when, say, you're going through the Good Article process) than it is to find new editors because the old ones all burned out from stress.

So the question I'm asking myself here isn't "who is Right?", but rather "who is reacting the most aggressively?". And, ignoring User:Symode09, who was already chided by another user and seems to not be involved in the main argument anyway, that appears to be you. So please, calm down, and play nicely with the other children. --erachima formerly tjstrf 09:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Until you have read and understood WP:CIVIL and generally understood the ethos of communal consensual editing, and promise to abide by those principles, your presence on the encyclopedia is disruptive and I have therefore removed your editing privileges. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. While I believe you are sincere here (although there wasn't much time between those unblock requests, I do point out), your recent contributions were rather severe. I'm going to contact LessHeard vanU and see if s/he is willing to at least lessen your block to a definite time. I'm leaving this in their hands, however. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome Back

Welcome back to editing Joseph. I'm glad that you weren't blocked indefinitely because I know that you can be a good writer and contributor here. However, just so we're clear on things, I had suggested here that you be given a short block so that you could rethink how you interact with other editors. I'm hoping that you've done that because your work at Abigail Taylor was good when you weren't going out of your way to piss people off. If you take a look at that article now, I think you'll be impressed by how it turned out. Even the editors that you and I disagreed with made useful contributions to it in the end. Wikipedia can be an exciting, and sometimes frustrating, project to work on. If you have any questions, or if there's anything I can help you with, please drop a note on my Talkpage. Happy editing! Doc Tropics 18:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment on List of the verified oldest people

A request for comment has been initiated at Talk:List of the verified oldest people. As you have been involved in the issue, you may wish to comment there. Cheers, CP 00:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

List of posthumous Academy Award winners and nominees

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

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

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

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

(de-indent) Hi Joseph. My point about the circumstances of the death was that in some cases, an actor has died during the shooting of their last film. Sometimes this has meant the film was never completed. In other cases, some scenes had to be done by a double, or someone with their back to the camera, or they used old footage, or they even altered the story line and other actors had to shoot newly invented scenes that had never been intended as part of the original screenplay. Where we can identify such details, it would be good to reveal some of the more interesting ones. In some cases, the filming was all finished a year or more before it was released, and they needed the intervening time for editing, etc. An actor or whoever could easily die well after finishing their involvement in the movie, but still a year or more before it was ever publicly shown, meaning 2 or more years before it was considered for nomination.

Comments on the table (in no particular order):

• It’s great that the list can be sorted by any of the heading keys, and it’s great that you’ve already done most of the work that I had decided to do to set the article up. Thanks for that.
• Names should be in a consistent format, such as <given name> <surname>. Most are, but there are a few <surname> <comma> <given name>. I generally prefer the <given name> <surname> format. However, I recognise that by using the sort button, we’d get people appearing sorted by given name rather than by surname. So perhaps the <surname> <comma> <given name> format would be most appropriate.
• Is there any way to sort the table by more than 1 key? so that we could see, say, all the posthumously nominated actors appearing together - not alphabetically but chronologically.
• Charles Miller’s and Louis Stankiewics’s death dates seem a little off, but I’m sure you knew that.
• The word “Winner” should perhaps be bolded, or the whole line put into a stand-out colour.
• People in non-competitive categories (Jean Hersholt award; Honorary awards; etc) should form a separate list, but part of the same article. There was no nomination process involved with these awards, and the people who got them could not be said to have “won” them. The board through its good grace simply decided it would be appropriate to award them. They are clearly different from competitive Oscars, although they still count as Oscars in an individual’s overall Oscar tally. I wouldn’t be surprised if, in some cases, an honorary award was given precisely because the awardee had died (perhaps unexpectedly), and they wanted to honour their memory and their whole body of work in a tangible way. Competitive Oscars are, by definition, related to specific films rather than the person’s whole body of work.
• Scientific and Technical awards: These have always got much less media interest than the more prominent Oscars, and they’re even presented on a different night at a different venue, and are not televised. I’m not even sure if they’re competitive, or simply awarded like the Honorary awards. They’re still just as much Oscars as the more prominent ones, and they should appear in the article, but in a separate table.
• I didn’t know till I started focussing on this topic that there had been so many posthumous nominations. Maybe a sub-table showing some highlights would be useful. Such as: the first posthumous nomination in each of the relevant categories; and the first successful such nomination in each of the categories; and the numbers of nominations and wins in each of the categories.
• There would have been some people who were very much alive when they were nominated, but died before the awards ceremony. These would not be classified as “Posthumous Nominations”, but if they won they’d be classified as “Posthumous Wins”. Where we can identify such details, we should make that distinction in the Comments column.
• Once we separate out the Special awards and the Scientific/Technical awards into their own sub-tables, the remaining competitive ones are all “Best” something. Perhaps we can show, eg. “Best Original Song” as simply “Original Song”, etc. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

• I’m not sure it’s applicable only to actors. People like George Gershwin, Jerome Kern and Walt Disney were extremely well-known in their fields. The song writer Frank Churchill, while less well known, committed suicide, which might interest some readers more than if he'd died in his sleep. There's also the case of Geoffrey Unsworth, the original cinematographer of Tess, who died half-way during filming. Ghislain Cloquet was brought in to finish the shooting. Both names were listed in the Oscar nomination, but interestingly only Cloquet was nominated for the César award (and won it) for the same film. Maybe the Césars don't allow for posthumous nominations. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Thanks. That works for me. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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

• I'll try to dig out their dates of death. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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

• I was only suggesting that the rows containing the word “winner” be coloured. Not the others. But your change makes it very easy to spot the winners, so that’s fine. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

• Yes. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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

• As an interim, I’ve added some of these details to List of Academy Award records‎. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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

• I’m not aware of it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s happened at some stage. While technically they wouldn’t be posthumous nominees, they’re still sufficiently in the area of interest of this article for them to be listed. An explanation in the Comments column would certainly be appropriate. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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

• I’m happy with that. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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

• Would you be happy for me to directly edit your list-in-progress, or would you prefer to keep it as your own project at this stage? I’m thinking about details such as correcting some of the links you refer to, but there could be other things.
• In fact, I’d say that it’s sufficiently good already to post it as a new article. With the talk about Heath Ledger, I’m sure interest in this subject will mount over the coming months, and it would be good to get in early with an article. Lots of other editors would then also have the opportunity to contribute to it. The other concern is that some other editor unknown to us may independently be working on just such an article, and I can’t imagine their version being better than yours. So better to get in early from that perspective, as well. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Joseph. It looks great. I'll have a close inspection over the next few days but for now it seems to fill a much-needed gap. Excellent work. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Update re: List of oldest and youngest Academy Award winners and nominees

NYScholar (talk) 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. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Appreciating your hard work in compiling this list, I have taken some time to add the (I think necessary) source citations in compliance with WP:V and WP:CITE (etc.) and annotated the links already added to the EL section. Thought that you might like to know this. These source citations and EL sec. should give you some working models for how to add citations and EL secs. (and possibly See also secs.) to some of the similar kinds of articles (lists) that you have been creating or are still working on. (If you wish to, please place further comments about editing this article on the talk page of the article, not on my talk page. Thanks.) --NYScholar (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Academy Award-winning films

To: User talk:Steglev

From: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro

Hello. I noticed that you have done a ton of work on the above-named article. Great job! You have done a lot of great work in this article. Thank you! I also noticed that you added a few questions and comments to the article's Talk Page. Your main concerns there seem to be whether or not to include Special and Honorary Academy Awards and, if so, how to include them in the article / list. I just wanted to let you know that I am actually in the process of revamping this article completely. By revamping, I should really say "reformatting" it. What I am doing is taking all of that same information --- but I am formatting it into a Chart / Table design layout. Within the Chart, I have included a column for "Special and Honorary Academy Awards". If you have a moment, can you please take a look at my new, reformatted Chart for this Wikipedia article? It is located here ---> User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page34. Thank you. Please remember that this is one of my current projects and, thus, it is a work in progress. It is nowhere near being complete. Please let me know what you think of my new format and if you have any comments, suggestions, feedback, input, criticisms, ideas, etc. I'd really like to hear your thoughts. Please feel free to reply at my Talk Page ---> User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro. Thanks in advance for your feedback ... and thanks again for all of your efforts in improving this article! Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC))

Thanks! And the sandbox looks really good! Couple of notes... if you don't have the Alternate name (or even if you do), there probably should be some consistency deciding which title to use. The ones I posted were the ones that the official acadamy page listed, which were different than, say, imdb. Good idea on including which awards ceremony, too! The year, i assume, is the year of release? And finally, do you only have winners because the size of the list? I have a pretty complete list of all nominees, I think. Either way, if you would like, I can programatically use my db/lists to create the a starting point in your format that you can cut and paste into the wiki edit box. That's how i was able to add my changes so quickly, and it actually took longer because I inserted only what was missing instead. Let me know if I can help! Steglev (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC) I did think of one more source of confusion. Some nominations are "not official", so it is unclear whether or not these are included. For instance, I noticed you changed the Wizard of Oz from 5 to 6 nominations. One of those was an unofficial nomination, and whoever put it there in the first place may have been unsure if it should be included Steglev (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. Sorry that it has taken me so long to get back to you. Thanks for your messages and for your feedback … much appreciated. Thank you. Let me offer the following thoughts, comments, and questions in reply to your messages.

1. My Sandbox – Do you have any other suggestions regarding the new format that I am working on for the List of Academy Award-winning films page? Anything in particular that you like? Dislike? Please feel free to let me know. Thanks. As a reminder, the link to my work in progress (my sandbox) on this article is here: User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page34.

2. Alternate names and "aka" names of films – I agree with what you say. There needs to be some consistency. And I agree that we should probably stick with whatever the Academy "officially" calls a film. As I was doing some work, however, I realized that a LOT of films have alternative titles and "aka" titles. A great majority of films have these alternative titles that a lot of people probably don't even know about. For example, even Ben Hur has an "aka" of Ben Hur: The Story of Jesus Christ or something to that effect. I was actually thinking of this. Since there are so many films that have an "aka" --- and since we want to be consistent throughout the entire article --- perhaps we should leave out the "aka" information altogether? And, people can simply see the "aka" when they read the film's main page. I don't know – what do you think? Of course, that still leaves the problem ... what if a reader only "knows" / recognizes the film by one "aka" name and not the other? Then, the reader would never know the title to look under, right? What are your thoughts on the whole "aka" issue? As I said, as I was editing entries, I was somewhat shocked by how common and prevalent "aka" titles are ... and I would like to see them all handled consistently throughout the article.

3. The Year Column – this indicates the "year in film" which the particular Award ceremony is honoring. And, in 99.9% of cases, yes – that is the year of the film's release. There are some minor odd-ball exceptions that occur here and there. And foreign films tend to have different years of release in their own country than they might have in the USA --- and the latter dictates which Academy Award "year" the film becomes eligible for. (A lot of foreign films seem to be "off" by a year.) But, for 99.9% of films, the year of release is the same as the year in film being honored by the Academy ... and that is what I recorded in that YEAR column. So, for example, the 80th Academy Awards were held in 2008 and they honored films from 2007 ... so I would include 2007 as the Year column for a 2007 film that won awards at the 80th ceremony held in 2008. Make sense?

4. You asked about only having winners (as opposed to mere nominees) in the list. I did not start the article way back when. I assume that it started small and began to grow / evolve over time. So, yes – I assume that it started with simply the winners of Oscars – and not merely the nominees. The title of the article, of course, reflects winners and not nominees. To me, that seems to be how and why the article today stands as it does. I am not quite sure about adding all of the nominated films that never won. I assume, of course, that they would increase the list size. I guess that I would wonder by how much? You said that you have a pretty complete list of all nominees. (Where did you get that, by the way?) Can you tell me – how big is the list of nominees? And how big is the list of winners? I would be curious about the change in size of adding all nominees to the current winners. Can you tell me the data / numbers for this? In any event, I think we should clean up and fix all of the winners in an acceptable format. Then, possibly, worry about adding in the extra nominees that never won. And also, we need to consider the size of both lists. Thanks.

5. You said to me in your reply: "Either way, if you would like, I can programmatically use my db/lists to create a starting point in your format that you can cut and paste into the wiki edit box. That's how I was able to add my changes so quickly, and it actually took longer because I inserted only what was missing instead. Let me know if I can help!" I really did not understand what this sentence meant? Can you please explain or give an example? (I am not a very computer tech / program savvy type.) Thanks. But, let me know what you mean. Certainly anything that can help and make a job easier is welcome. So, thanks very much for your offer of help. Please clarify what help this "programmed list" can offer to me?

6. Nominations – yes, there seemed to be some confusion about nominations. The Academy lists different types of nominations along with each film. Most of them are what they call official nominations. And a handful of them – for whatever reason – they refer to as unofficial nominations. There are a variety of reasons for this. Some candidates have write-in nominations which are not considered official, only unofficial. Some of the logistics and mechanics of the award process also dictate the nominations process. In one year (I think it was in 1928 / 1929), there were no "official" nominations at all – just winners. But the Academy considered the names under consideration as unofficial nominations. Some specific awards have this logistical quirk as well. The Academy Board considered a few films (i.e., they are unofficial nominations), then narrowed it down to the official nominations, and then selected a final winner. This is, I believe, what happened with that "extra" (sixth) nomination for The Wizard of Oz. In any event, I think that there are far too many quirks to deal with this issue in a list format. So perhaps somewhere on the page, we can add a generic note that overall explains the situation generally and comprehensively -– as opposed to explaining it for each individual occurrence for each film. Overall, I think that if the Academy considers it a nomination (official or unofficial), we should include it. That is, if it's on the Academy web site page, it's good enough to include. Then, we can add some general asterisk or note to explain that some nominations are considered official and some unofficial … but nonetheless, they are all nominations. Your thoughts?

Thanks again for your help. Please reply at my Talk Page whenever you have a moment. I look forward to hearing your thoughts, ideas, input, suggestions, and feedback about the article ... and about the points that I raised above. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC))

I'm in a bit of a hurry, but here are some quick answers:

1. I'll let you know as I think of them

2. Yes, I've thought about this, too. I have a list of the english aka's for each film, but of course, they often have other languages, too. Also, many of the aka's are alternative spellings. Leaving them off is probably the best, as you suggest, and maybe add in one or two that are confusing because they are known (at least in the US) by a different name.

3. Yes, it makes sense. Though this seems to be redundant with the Awards Ceremony, which defines a year. And, there are some notable exceptions. Limelight won 20 years after it was made, and The Gold Rush was nominated (didn't win) in 1942, but was released in 1925. Though that technically was a re-release, I think.

4. The numbers are: There have been 8685 nominations and special awards in the 80 awards. This does not count 17 really un-official nominations in 1943 and a withdrawn nomination in 1963. This covers 4248 films, of which slightly more than 1100 have won (haven't done a recount counting wins AND special awards, so it may be a few films higher).

5. as an example, I made this sandbox based on your table in an hour or so this morning. User:Steglev/Sandbox/Page01. I shamelessly "borrowed" your sandbox format, hope you don't mind. All the data comes from oscars.org and was crosschecked against imdb.com and wikipedia. Because I do the checking of the data with a program I wrote, it's fairly fast to do. And since I have it in a database, I can output whatever format I want pretty easily.

6. That sounds reasonable. I did leave off the nominations I mentioned mainly because imdb decided to leave them off, too. But they can easily be added back in.

Got to run. Steglev (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the quick reply! Wow! I checked out your Sandbox! I am very impressed! I have about a million questions, comments, etc., for you ... but I do not have time to get to them right now. I shall email you back more comprehensively in a day or so. But, for now, I just wanted to get back to you quickly to let you know that I received your reply, appreciate it, and am impressed! Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC))

Hello again. Sorry it took me a while to get back to you. Let me address the 6 points you made above. (Bullet 1) Yes, please offer any suggestions. I really appreciate feedback and ideas, etc. (Bullet 2) We both agree that leaving off nearly all "aka" titles works best ... except in the rare odd circumstances. (Bullet 3) As far as the years / ceremonies. I agree that it is redundant. But to most people, who are not necessarily familiar with the ins and outs of the Oscars, a ceremony number is meaningless. They need to have the context that a film was in the 1950's or 1990's or whatever. That is my opinion. Also, the rare exceptions like Limelight or The Gold Rush, etc., can be addressed in a footnote in the "Notes" column. (Bullet 4) I am not sure that I follow your numbers / data. This is my interpretation of your Bullet Point #4 above. Please tell me if I am correct. You are saying that there are 8685 nominations in total ... meaning not only films, but also when you add in actors, directors, cinematography, etc. Correct? Every single category, combined, yields that 8685 figure. (Essentially, then, that 8685 figure is largely irrelevant for us right now – correct?) Of that 8685 total, 4248 of the nominations are in Film categories (Best Picture, Documentary, etc.) ... and, of that, 1100 are actually Film winners. Do I understand the numbers correctly? So, the article that you and I are working on at the moment would contain 1100 films if we only included winners, but it would expand to 4248 if we included all nominees (regardless of wins). Is this the case? I am not sure where I stand on that, at this moment. I think this article now, with 1100 entries, is long. A list of 4000+ would seem excessively long. At the same time, there would be great value in having a list of all Oscar-nominated films, winners and non-winners. What do you think? For now, I’d like to clean up the current article – and revisit the addition of the remaining 3000+ films later on. You? (Bullet 5) I looked at your sand box ... it is great! I have a million questions about Bullet Point #5. So, I will address those separately, after I hear back from you on these other minor issues. For now, though ... in a nutshell, where do you get all that data and how do you "program it" so quickly? (Remember, that you are speaking to a non computer / tech type here!) When I looked at your sandbox, I was shocked that you did all of that in an hour. I would have taken months and hundreds of hours of typing all that data over! That is exactly what I have been doing all along! Is there some easier way that I don't know about ... that saves all of those hundreds of hours of typing? (Bullet 6) We are in agreement about listing all nominations that the Academy lists, whether official or unofficial. Thanks. Please reply at my Talk Page. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC))

1-3 and 6) nothing to add, 4) your conclusion is right (4248 films if you include non winners), but the 8685 is total nominations for just film related oscars (including best actor, etc). I agree that 4248 is much too large a list, though. 5) I wrote a program that "scrapes" the data i am looking for off of the various web sites. I stored these in the database i spoke of, and wrote other programs to compare the data so I could address discrepancies. Once the data was "clean", I wrote a program to output it in your format. The gathering of the data took a couple of days, but now the output is fairly easy (the 1 hour... much less for changes). It's not perfect... for instance, i took the links from the old page, but there are some new entries that I let the program guess at the links. I went and cleaned those up today, but there may be other links that need cleaning. Steglev (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films roll call and coordinator elections

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2008 Newsletter

The August 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections - voting now open!

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2008 Newsletter

The September 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also note that after the roll call for active members, we've cleared the specialized delivery lists. Feel free to sign-up in the relevant sections again!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films October 2008 Newsletter

The October 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have suggestions or comments related to the newsletter, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you and happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films November 2008 Newsletter

The November 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. My apologies for the late delivery, and thanks go to both Wildroot and Erik for writing the newsletter. Remember that anyone can edit the newsletter, so feel free to help out! Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films December 2008 Newsletter

The December 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Questionnaire

As a member of WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2009 Newsletter

The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject Films newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

spelling out numbers

Hi, just so you know, I changed your edit at 81st Academy Awards in which you changed my edit of "thirteen" to 13. Per MOS, bullet point #2 (and general grammar rules), you don't write something like "42 and ten" but "forty-two and ten" or "42 and 10". Mixing them is bad practice. Just FYI. Thanks. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. This is a funny coincidence ... because I was just about to send you a message about this very same issue. I was curious ... why do you think that the "13" should be "thirteen" ... and what makes you say that "if it were 27, it would be different"? Please let me know. Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

If you look at the recent history of the page, I've changed it back to "thirteen" multiple times and the most recent time before fixing yours I used that edit summary. I copy+pasted that reason. The first time I used that edit summary I knew it was just a grammar rule (it is; stick with consistency. Mixing numbers and spelled-out numbers is bad practice). With yours, I looked it up in MOS to make sure I'm right. If you go to the link to MOS I put above and look at the second bullet in that list, you'll see what I mean. As for "27", I was thinking about it being spelled out: "twenty-seven". I personally don't like larger numbers liked that typed out (especially b/c of the dash), but it seems Wikipedia believes it should be if it's grouped with other spelled-out numbers. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Idea running by you

We haven't talked in quite a while and I know you're pretty busy with other projects, I've seen your sandbox, lots of castles in there, but anyway since we've talked on this article quite a lot I thought I might run this by you before putting it in use, on the List of television programs by episode count, I've thought of putting in a Country of Origin column which I'm actually working on right now and I pretty much wanted your thoughts on it before I actually go ahead and make it final, oh and btw I have been working on the article again for the past few days afkatk (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll make a Sandbox to show you how everything will look afterwards afkatk (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Good to hear back from you again ... and I am glad to see that you decided to work on this article again! That's great news. As to your question ... yes, I think that adding in the "Country of Origin" is a great idea ... and I think that it will add to and benefit the article a great deal. So, my vote is: yes, go ahead and do it. Also, yes, I would love to see how this all looks, in your Sandbox, whenever that is ready. When it is, please let me know. I would be happy (and interested) to take a look at it. Thanks a lot for contacting me about this. Please reply back, whenever appropriate, at my Talk Page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC))

Also ... I am not trying to make "more work" for you ... but I do have two suggestions about this article. What do you think? Because the list is now sortable, I think the table should have the following two things: (a) the Column for Years Broadcasting should be split into two separate columns ... one for "Beginning" and one for "Ending" years. This would make more sense in a sortable chart ... and ... (b) I think that the titles should be listed in alphabetical order, not episode quantity order. Because the list is now sortable, a person can always take the alphabetical list and simply sort by episode number, if they want to see which show has the highest count, second highest count, lowest count, etc. More importantly, episode "counts" will constantly change --- for shows in production, at least. Which means constantly "keeping track of" and therefore "moving" a show on the list whenever the episode count changes ... which could be every day ... or every week. However, if the list was in alphabetical order, the order would never change at all ... and no one would have to "keep track of changing the order of the list" every time an in-production show added more episodes. This is quite a bit of up-front work ... but, I think, worth it. What do you think of these two ideas? Please reply at my Talk Page, whenever you want to. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC))

Hi, it's me again. I just now took a quick look at your Sandbox. Looks great! I have two thoughts to add. (1) For what it's worth ... I think that the first column of the Table should definitely be the title of the show. That is the most important piece of information in the whole list. I wouldn't care where exactly the "Country of Origin" column goes later on in the Table ... except that it definitely should not be the very first column. That is my opinion. The very first column should necessarily be the Title. I just wanted to share my opinion before you got too far down the list and did a great deal more work. And (2) ... I know that some people on Wikipedia complain if you list a flag alone without actually also writing the country name. I, myself, don't care about this ... and I don't know the "official" Wikipedia rule about it. But, I worked on other articles before ... and some people made a big deal that you can't list the flag alone without also writing the country name. So, I just wanted to "warn you" in advance. Just so you know, here is an article that I once worked on, a long time ago ... so you can see what I mean ---> User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page22. Thanks for listening. Your thoughts? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC))

I think the alphabetically listed part isn't really much of an issue as you pointed out this is sortable, and I am going to implement the idea of having 2 separate columns and I shall update the list with the separate columns and plan to eventually get the dts sorted out, I put the Nationality column up first mainly because it just sorta looked right, but I'll probably squeeze it into the 3rd or so collumn and I do have plans to make this more sotable as well, thanks for the input as well, this is pretty much the main reason I started up the Sandbox, nice hearing from you about the article as well, anymore ideas I'll pretty much put into consideration about implementing them afkatk (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Afkatk/SandboxP2 I finished the thing btw, so if you want to view it and tell me what you think of it before I go ahead and add it to the article, plus the Start and End Broadcasting I'll probably get started on it tomorrow or so afkatk (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I checked it out. I think it looks great. You did a lot of work on that article! I am glad that you moved the "Country" column, so that it was not listed first on the left. It looks much better, the way that you now have it. Great job! Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC))

If you'd happily direct your eyes to User:Afkatk/SandboxP2, you can see a little glimpse of what it will look like after the Columns are seperated afkatk (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I did take a look ... and it looks great! I really don't have any changes that I would recommend. If I had to find one ... I might say that the last column (in production: yes/no) is perhaps unnecessary. We can tell from the ending date whether or not the show is still being produced. But, it is also fine if that column stays in the Chart, too. Either way is fine. Other than that, I don't see any issues ... and I think it looks great! Thanks for keeping me posted ... and thanks for all the work that you are putting / have been putting into this. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC))

81st Academy Awards

In response to Jerry Lewis' quote, it was: "I shall pass through this world but once. Any good, therefore, that I can do or any kindness that I can show to any human being, let me do it now. Let me not defer nor neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again!" Thanks!--Snowman Guy (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you so much! What a great quote! Apparently, through a Google search, Jerry Lewis was quoting Mohandas Gandhi. I am curious what you think about this. Do you think it's appropriate to add that to the 81st Academy Awards article? Or not really? In other words, it is not a quote of Lewis himself ... but, rather, a quote of Lewis quoting another (namely, Gandhi). Do you think that merits mention in the article or no ... in the "memorable quotes" section? Personally, I do ... and I plan to add it in ... but I just wanted to hear your thoughts, also. Thanks. Please reply at my Talk Page. And thanks again for going back to your video and finding this info out for me! Much appreciated. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC))

I believe it could easily be added to the "Notable quotes" section. However, I'm considering whether or not it should also be noted in the article that he was quoting another person. Thoughts?--Snowman Guy (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I just added it into the article. And, yes ... I think it's important to note -- as I did -- that Lewis was actually quoting another person. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC))

On another subject, I think that a "Notable events" section should be added to the article, but am unsure exactly which events in the telecast should be notable. Comments?--Snowman Guy (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a "notable events" section is a good idea. Off the top of my head ... these were notable (to me, at least): (1) they used 5 previous winners to award the acting awards ... and each previous winner spoke directly to a current nominee; (2) the whole Ben Stiller and Joaquin Phoenix impersonation was notable ... and I am surprised there is no mention of it yet ... (3) Sid Ganis announced that he is leaving as AMPAS President. Those are the three that come to mind at this exact moment. With which, I am sure, some will disagree. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC))

I think that those all sound notable as well, and I'll go and add them to the article. However, they may need to be referenced. Thanks!--Snowman Guy (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You may (or may not) be aware ... that the #1 item that I mentioned above (5 veterans award current acting awards) is already mentioned in the article to some degree. So, you may want to move the info, or change the wording, or delete it, or decide to keep it where it is. Just wanted to make sure you knew it was already in there, in some form (in the "Premise" section). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC))

I've now tryed to improve the article much more by re-formatting the "Presenters and Performers" section into tables and by building up the "Notable events" section. I would like to have some suggestions (or comments) on how the said sections could furthr be improved. Thoughts? Thanks!--Snowman Guy (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that everything looks great! Thanks for all of the work that you are putting into this article! I did go in and make some changes ... but it all looks good now, as far as I can see. By the way ... you may know this, since you have a copy of the Awards ceremony. For the In Memoriam section, did they actually include specific dates of the memorial? I know that last year they did so. Last year, they said something like "In Memoriam --- February 1, 2007, to January 1, 2008" ... or something to that effect. Did they do the same this year? Do you know the actual dates that they listed, if they did so? If they did use actual dates, I would like to add them into the article. Thanks. Please let me know at my Talk Page. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC))

Help Me

{{helpme}}

Let's say that I want to look at an old question from a few days ago (or a few weeks ago) ... on one of the Wikipedia Reference Desks. Let's just say, on the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science, for example. I know where I can go to look at the current questions. Where exactly do I go to find the old / archived questions? Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC))

Try the search box at the top of each refdesk page. //roux   21:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. I had asked a question (entitled "burn" or "burns") a week or so ago at the Science Help Reference Desk. When I type "burn" or "burns" into the search box that you suggested, it simply brings me to the Wikipedia article on burns. Can you help? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC))

here you go. I used the search box. //roux   22:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives Spinach Monster (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February 2009 Newsletter

The February 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions about Film Project Group

Hi. I have two questions about the Film Project Group ... and I believe that you are the head of that group. Please reply. (1) Does Wikipedia have any sort of rules / policies / guidelines / etc. regarding the creation of an article (or page) that is simply a collection or listing of other Wikipedia articles? For example ... if I want to create on one page an article that lists all of the Wikipedia articles that are related to the Academy Awards ... is that something that is do-able ... and what are the guidelines for doing so? If you want an example of what I mean, please take a look at this sandbox page of mine (which I am currently working on and is certainly not finished): User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page36. (2) My second question is ... how does an editor (like me) make changes/edits to a template or an info box? For example, see the info box at the top right of this page: 81st Academy Awards. If I wanted to edit that to read "Most Awards" instead of "Most Wins" ... how would I do that? Thank you. Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

I believe you are essentially creating what is a topical index. I don't see any reason why we couldn't consolidate this as such - although isn't most of this already in the Academy Awards template? Might be too redundant to bother. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks. I looked at the Template that you referred me to. No, there are many, many more Academy Award articles in Wikipedia than the (relatively) few that are listed in that Template. So, redundancy would not be an issue, I believe. How about my second question? How to change a template / info box? Thanks. Please reply at my Talk Page. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC))

Fair enough. As for the infobox - you'd edit the template much like any other article: find the text and change it. That being said, it's generally a good idea to raise this on the template's talk page first. Good luck! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks. Where exactly will I find the template for the info box for the one at the top right of the article called 81st Academy Awards? I can't seem to locate it. Thank you. Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks for your help. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC))

Template:Infobox Academy Awards Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

81st Academy Awards

Check on posthumous issue and notable nominations. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Help Me

{{helpme}}

Can anyone help with this question? Thanks in advance. Please take a look at the list below. You can also take a look at the Wikipedia "code" that generates this list below, if you'd like, by hitting the "edit" link to the right above. My question is this. Is there any way to make the second column of the list simply continue the numerical count, without starting over at "1"? If so, what is the way to accomplish that? In other words, I would like the second half of the list, on the right hand side, to begin with the numbers 19, 20, 21, and so on. Any advice? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

All I can say is that some long articles have a reference section that is split up into columns. e.g. Autism#References. The template involved is Template:Reflist#Multiple_columns. I don't know if this can be applied to what you're looking to create. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the list of articles do not necessarily have to be numbered right? If that's true, a simple change from numbered list to a bullet list (change # to *) should do the trick. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 08:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but ... I had actually started out with the bulleted list. Then, I decided on the numbered list. That was when I ran across this little quirk (i.e., that the numbers start over at "1" when I add in a column break). I still would like to use the numbers, and I imagine that there must be some way to do so. Anyone know? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

Well, apart from not seeing how a numbered list is superior to a bulleted one, I think at this point you should take your technical questions to WP:VPT, as they are beyond our abilities to answer. //roux   16:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Leading off with {{colbegin}} and ending with {{colend}} might give you what you want; no need to indicate where the break should be. Best, CliffC (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Lists

1. List of Academy Award articles
2. List of Academy Award records
3. List of Academy Award-winning films
4. List of Academy Awards ceremonies
5. List of actors nominated for Academy Awards for foreign language performances
6. List of actors nominated for two Academy Awards in the same year
7. List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners
8. List of actors with two or more Academy Awards in acting categories
9. List of Argentine Academy Award winners and nominees
10. List of Asian Academy Award winners and nominees
11. List of Best Actor winners by age at win
12. List of Best Actress winners by age at win
13. List of Best Director winners by age at win
14. List of Best Supporting Actor nominees
15. List of Best Supporting Actor nominees (films)
16. List of Best Supporting Actor winners by age at win
17. List of Best Supporting Actress nominees
18. List of Best Supporting Actress nominees (films)

1. List of Best Supporting Actress winners by age at win
2. List of Big Five Academy Award winners and nominees
3. List of Black Academy Award winners and nominees
4. List of directors with two or more Academy Awards for Best Director
5. List of fictitious Academy Award nominees
6. List of films receiving six or more Academy Awards
7. List of Mexican Academy Award winners and nominees
8. List of oldest and youngest Academy Award winners and nominees
9. List of people who have won multiple Academy Awards in a single year
10. List of persons who have won Academy, Emmy, Grammy, and Tony Awards
11. List of posthumous Academy Award winners and nominees
12. List of presenters of Best Picture Academy Award
13. List of Puerto Rican Academy Award winners and nominees
14. List of Spanish Academy Award winners and nominees
15. List of superlative Academy Award winners and nominees
16. List of Uruguayan Academy Award winners and nominees
17. Lists of Hispanic Academy Award winners and nominees by country

Possibility of reformatting Acting Oscar pages

Have you consider reformatting the pages for the acting Oscar winners and Best Picture in the style of the Best Director page? I've also thought about including the winners' pictures, but that may be too much.Jzummak (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the message. It's funny that you ask because ... actually ... I had been thinking of the exact opposite! I had noticed that the Best Director format was the only one that didn't "match" all the others. So, at one point, I had planned to change the Best Director page to make it "look like" all the others. I had not given it any thought beyond that. I assume that you think the Best Director format looks better than the others? Why do you like that one better? What do you like about that set-up? I am just curious. As far as the pictures ... I am guessing that that will be difficult. First, people are forever deleting pictures because we don't have the copyright (or whatever) to publish them. So, I always see pictures added, then deleted, then added, then deleted, etc. Also, adding pictures for all of the actors would take a huge amount of space ... so I assume that you mean only a select few? Also, back to the first item I mentioned. Some people, upon seeing pictures, will think that they can just add any photo they want of their favorite actor ... which means the pages / photos will constantly be getting changed / deleted / etc. I don't necessarily think that adding photo's is a bad idea. I am just pre-emptively offering some concerns that may arise. Feel free to reply at my Talk Page. Thanks. PS ... Quite frankly, when I have time, I was considering revamping all of the Academy Awards winners pages, anyway ... at least the "main ones" (Acting, Directing, Best Picture, etc.). It's still on my back burner. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

I'd noticed that the Winners and Nominees section of the Director had 31 kilobytes, while the same section of the Actor and Actress pages had 35 and 37 kilobytes. Although there may be other factors, this one stood out for me.Jzummak (talk) 05:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2009 Newsletter

The March 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Help Me April 8, 2009

{{helpme}}

Please help. Thanks in advance. Does anyone know the correct way to format text in Wikipedia, so that it duplicates what one might think of as a "tab key" on a manual typewriter? It would be used when I want a column of information to "line up" neatly. Here is an example below. Since I don't know how to create a "tab" to align the columns ... I just used extraneous periods instead (just to give an idea of what I am trying to accomplish). I would like to align the columns (like in the example below -- but without all the periods that I typed in as "space" fillers). I am familiar with the " & nbsp ; " (non-breaking space) command. And I am familiar with the ability to create bullets with the " * " (asterisk) command or the " # " (number) command. But, those are not what I am talking about, here. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

Winners:...........................Person A

........................................Person B

........................................Person C

Runners up:......................Person D

........................................Person E

........................................Person F

Honorable Mention:...........Person G

.......................................Person H

.......................................Person I

Sounds like you want to use a table. WP:TABLE (and the links in there) should answer your questions. I suggest experimenting in your user area, e.g. User:Joseph A. Spadaro/tabletest. If you have trouble, use another helpme, or talk to us live.  Chzz  ►  16:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. No, I am very familiar with tables. A table will not serve my purpose here. Basically, I want the "data / information" to look like a table (that is, aligned neatly in columns) ... but without the gridlines of a table. So, in my example above ... just imagine that all of those periods are simply blank white space. That's what I am trying to achieve. I would have thought that some command similar to TAB would be an easy thing to do ... am I wrong? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

You can build tables with the border property set to 0px, or possibly set to 1px transparent. //roux   18:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

To be very specific ... this (below) is what I am trying to "fix" / improve ... in the article 2009 Oakland police shootings.

THIS IS THE TEXT CURRENTLY: Article: 2009 Oakland police shootings

During this incident, four police officers were killed in the line of duty, while an additional officer was injured.

Killed:

• Motorcycle Sergeant Mark Dunakin, age 40, had been with the Oakland Police Department since 1991.

• Motorcycle Officer John Hege, age 41, had been with the Oakland Police Department since 1999.

• SWAT Sergeant Ervin Romans, age 43, had been with the Oakland Police Department since 1996.

• SWAT Sergeant Daniel Sakai, age 35, had been with the Oakland Police Department since 2000.

Injured:

• SWAT Sergeant Pat Gonzales was shot through the left shoulder and had a second bullet ricochet off his helmet.

What I Want It To Look Like (If Possible): ... ......... ( sort of ) what I have below ... but as long as the columns align neatly.

During this incident, four police officers were killed in the line of duty, while an additional officer was injured.

Killed:     * Motorcycle Sergeant Mark Dunakin, age 40, had been with the Oakland Police Department since 1991.

• Motorcycle Officer John Hege, age 41, had been with the Oakland Police Department since 1999.

• SWAT Sergeant Ervin Romans, age 43, had been with the Oakland Police Department since 1996.

• SWAT Sergeant Daniel Sakai, age 35, had been with the Oakland Police Department since 2000.

Injured:      * SWAT Sergeant Pat Gonzales was shot through the left shoulder and had a second bullet ricochet off his helmet.

Any ideas? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

• I don't think we have a "tab" function on Wikipedia. Also, you might wanna archive your talk page, it's longer than War and Peace. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 19:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Try this:

Foo	Bar	Baz
Mork	Mindy	Ork

Just add whatever headers/rows you want. As a side note, would you perhaps consider archiving your talkpage? It takes a while to load. //roux   18:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why you removed that, but it is quite literally precisely what you want. Just add rows/columns as needed, and fiddle with the size if you like. Again, please consider archiving your talkpage as it is incredibly unwieldy to load. //roux   19:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)