Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:35, 30 March 2008

hey

Try not to be an idiot, eh? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.44 (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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_(Contribs) 19:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WARNING: beware of the 3RR Rule when reverting the edits. Compwhiz II_(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: Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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/search/?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 Misplaced Pages -- 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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: Misplaced Pages: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))

See Help:Table for information, sorry I can't help anymore, I am not very good with Misplaced Pages Markup! The headings have already been centered. If you still need help, just add {{helpme}} to your page again. The Helpful One 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 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 class="wikitable" 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 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 Misplaced Pages do I find the colors and their codes, etc.?

When looking at some tables in Misplaced Pages articles, I see color commands such as the following (see below). Where on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages - for a more useful list, check this chart: . 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.

Let me know if you have any questions. Hersfold 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 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.

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 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)

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. 23:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Another comment: By the way, I really admire your work on film articles. — Andy W. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages:Help desk? ---Sluzzelin talk 03:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Cielito Lindo

Hey there, i spotted you as a contributor to the Cielito Lindo article, and was wondering whether you would be interested in helping out with the new Malagueña Salerosa one.
Thanks? --Jerome Potts (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the message. I do not know the first thing about Spanish, believe me. (I wish that I did!) I just happen to love that song, Cielito Lindo ... and when I found out that there was a Misplaced Pages article on it, I just went in and cleaned it up a little bit. Sorry --- but I would / could be of no use on the new article that you mentioned. Thanks for asking. Please reply back to me at my Talk Page, if you want to reply. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:17, 19 February 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))

Juvenile Oscar

I know that there is already a page for this award, but a few weeks ago I came upon a internet article saying that the Academy was considering giving the award for "Best Juvenille Actor/Actress" annually from 2010 on word. I didn't think much of it until I found yet another article saying the exact same thing. I have been looking around for both articles but haven't found any. Can any one help with this? Broadway4life155 (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I had never heard anything about this, until I saw your post on the Academy Award Talk Page. I looked all over the Internet, and I could not find anything at all related to this. Were you ever able to find the articles that you were referring to? If so, I would like to see them. Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

After much searching, I found both articles but, going back to the main page of the website that the first article was posted on, found that it was a uncredible gossip site and that most of the information presented was false. The second article used the first article as backup so that one was probably false as well. I'm going to remove the section I put on the talk page and unless someone wants to delve deeper into the subject, I'm just going to let it go. Broadway4life155 (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. I checked with the Academy Award's official site ... and it did not mention a word about this. If anything, that is exactly where we would find this "news" (at the official Academy's website) -- if indeed it was a credible story. Plus, it does not make sense, any way. Why would they want to re-instate the Juvenile Award? The young actors and actresses do just fine, when they compete along with the adults in the regular competitive categories. Thanks for getting back to me! Much appreciated. Can you please send me the links for the two bogus stories? I would like to read them, for laughs. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:54, 3 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". 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 Misplaced Pages, 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. 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. 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))

Lazale Ashby DR

I'm not sure if the judge has officially sentenced him yet, but unless Judge Carmen Espinosa finds a serious legal issue with the trial or sentencing, under state law she will have no choice but to formally sentence him to death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smb2a (talk • contribs) 03:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

Hey Joseph, just wanted to apologise for the editing I attempted on Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor. I don't know what I was thinking, of course Robert Duvall has 3 supporting noms! Thanks for catching it, promise to concentrate more at my next attempt at editing! Defenestrating (talk) 06:46, 26 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 while another lists it as 40.2 million. 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.

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

Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages. 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 - 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 ---> Misplaced Pages: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 ---> Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 / Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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)

List of Black Academy Award winners and nominees

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article List of Black Academy Award winners and nominees, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not and Misplaced Pages:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 15:01, 14 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 Misplaced Pages: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. — ] (] · ]) 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 Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy for a rough guide to the whole process. You should also read Misplaced Pages:Deletion guidelines for administrators, especially if you think the closing admin made a mistake. — ] (] · ]) 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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. Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 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. -- Scorpion 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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 Misplaced Pages 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 - 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 - Misplaced Pages: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 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 - 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 . They are worth reading. -- FayssalF - 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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))

It's actually a grey color (not pink/red) and I belive it's #F2F2F2 in hexadecimal. Voyaging 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 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}}

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))

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))

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 Misplaced Pages you can have a look at Misplaced Pages:Colours. Mion (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Minimum age for death penalty in Connecticut

Can anyone find information on the minimum age for the death penalty in Connecticut in the decade before Roper v Simmons? I was suprised to find that New Hampshire had the Juvenile Death Penalty and I believe I read somewhere that Connecticut did too. smb2aSmb2a (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Check out this page: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=27&did=203 . It says that prior to Roper vs. Simmons (2005), there were three states (Connecticut, New York, and North Carolina) that set age 16 as the minimum age for execution. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC))

No, that just means they can be tried as adults. It has nothing to do with the death penalty. I made the same mistake myself Smb2a (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that does mean that they can be tried as adults ... but ... it has everything to do with the death penalty. I called the State of Connecticut Law Library at the Connecticut Supreme Court in Hartford, CT. I spoke with one of the lawyers and one of the reference law library directors there. They were very helpful and we talked for about 20 minutes to half-an-hour ... about this exact issue. This is basically what they said. Before Roper vs. Simmons, Connecticut did not have a specific law / statute that states what the minimum age is for execution. (And still doesn't, by the way.) The only people that are eligible for execution are those that are sentenced through the adult court (and not those through juvenile court). Anyone who gets into adult court -- and is otherwise eligible -- can receive the death penalty. So, at the age of 16, certain criminals can get transferred into adult court ... and they can get the death sentence. Those who cannot get into adult court and are "stuck" in juvenile court cannot get the death penalty. Thus, those age 16 are eligible for adult court and, thus, those age 16 are eligible for the death penalty. Since Connecticut did not have a specific law to indicate the age, all that I described above was the state of the law at the time (before Roper vs. Simmons). Hope this is helpful. If you want to talk with anyone there yourself, I am sure they will tell you exactly what I just told you above. See this website: . Their phone number is: 860-757-6590. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:44, 30 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  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  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 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 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 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)

If another editor thinks her edits improve the article they can certainly put them back in. --NeilN 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

I am looking for help! Ask your question below. You can also check Help:Contents and the FAQ, or ask at the Help desk or the Teahouse. Users who monitor the category Wikipedians looking for help and those in Misplaced Pages's Live Help have been alerted and will assist you shortly. You can also join the chat room to receive live Misplaced Pages-related help there. You'll be receiving help soon, so don't worry. Note to helpers: Once you have offered help, please nullify the template using {{Tl}} or similar, replace with {{Help me-helped}}, or where {{Help me|question}} was used, use {{Tlp}}/{{Tnull}}

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 Misplaced Pages 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))

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" , 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 . So I've filed a complaint against you at Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

• Wikipedians looking for help