{{ 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))
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))
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)
To: User talk:StuRat and User talk:Lomn
From: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro
Re: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics#Simple Math Question -- Need Help -- Leap Years (?)
Can someone please help me with this simple math calculation? I can't understand it and it's driving me crazy. Any insight is appreciated. Thanks.
Method One
According to Microsoft Excel: A lived 17,260 days and B lived 17,259 days.
That seems to make "sense" since ... although in different calendar years ... they were both born on the same "day" (December 18) but Person A lived an extra day in March (dying on March 21 instead of March 20) while Person B did not live for that extra day in March (dying on March 20 instead of March 21). So, it makes sense that the March 21 decedent (Person A) has lived one extra day more than the March 20 decedent (Person B) ... that is, Person A lived 17,260 days which is one day more than Person B who lived 17,259 days.
So, the only thing that is truly "different" between Person A and B is ... the actual calendar years that they lived through ... and thus "how many leap years / leap days did each person live through." (I think?)
Person A has lived through 12 leap days: in 1948, 1952, 1956, 1960, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992.
Person B has lived through 12 leap days: in 1908, 1912, 1916, 1920, 1924, 1928, 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948, and 1952.
Using Method One (above), Person A lived one extra day more than Person B.
Method Two
Person A: From December 18, 1946 to December 18, 1993 is exactly 47 years. So, A celebrates his 47th birthday. The date of death on March 21, 1994 is 93 days after the birthday. (using Excel or viewing a calendar)
Person B: From December 18, 1904 to December 18, 1951 is exactly 47 years. So, B celebrates his 47th birthday. The date of death on March 20, 1952 is 93 days after the birthday. (using Excel or viewing a calendar)
Using Method Two (above), Person A lives 47 years and 93 days. Person B also lives 47 years and 93 days. (There is no "one day" difference.)
Method Three
I tried to use the Wikipedia template located at: Template:age in years and days.
Typing in these dates and values yields the following results:
Person A:
{{age in years and days|1946|12|18|1994|03|21}}
yields:
47 years, 93 days
Person B:
{{age in years and days|1904|12|18|1952|03|20}}
yields:
47 years, 93 days
So, Method Three (above) agrees with Method Two (above) ... Person A and Person B died at exactly the same age.
Method Four
I also tried to use the Wikipedia template located at: Template:age in days.
Typing in these dates and values yields the following results:
Person A:
{{age in days|1946|12|18|1994|03|21}}
yields:
17260
Person B:
{{age in days|1904|12|18|1952|03|20}}
yields:
17259
So, Method Four (above) agrees with Method One (above) ... Person A and Person B did not die at exactly the same age, but one day off.
Question
Can anyone help me understand the difference / distinction / discrepancy between these four methods? I seem to be missing something, but I cannot figure out what. Thanks. Where is my reasoning flawed?
Method One and Four agree that "A" lives one day longer than "B". (17,260 versus 17,259)
Methods Two and Three agree that "A" and "B" live exactly the same length of time. (47 years and 93 days)
So, perhaps the word "year" means a different thing for Person A than it does for Person B?
That is, the word "year" means 365 days in some cases ... but it means 366 days in some other (leap-year) cases.
That might seem to cause the discrepancy.
However, Person "A" has lived during 12 leap years/days ... and Person "B" has also lived during 12 leap year/days.
Thus, for both persons, the word "year" means 366 days in 12 years of their lives ... and the word "year" means 365 days in the other 36 years of their lives. They have both lived through 12 leap years and 35 normal years (thus, a birthday of 47 years total) ... plus a fractional piece of yet another (i.e., their 48th) year.
Can anyone help me understand the difference / distinction / discrepancy between these four methods? I seem to be missing something, but I cannot figure out what.
Where is my thinking flawed? Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro 05:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC))
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))
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))
Re: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Verb tense
Hello. You had contributed to the above discussion thread. Thanks. I wonder if I may ask you a follow-up question or two? First, to be honest, I can make neither heads nor tails out of what anyone said in that discussion. Can you simplify the concept in a way that I can understand? Thanks. Second, you confused me on one issue, as well. You seemed to make a distinction between saying that someone "set" a record versus "held" a record. Anyone who "sets" a record also "holds" the record ... no? Am I missing something? You seemed to make a critical distinction between the two, and I guess that I am not seeing it. Let's say that John Smith sets the record for most donuts ever eaten, at 100 donuts. John Smith sets the record and he also holds the record ... no? He is the record-setter and the record-holder ... no? Or are you simply saying that, after he sets the record --- yes, he is the record holder --- that is, until the next person breaks it. Is that what you meant? That setting a record is permanent while holding it is temporary? Thanks. If you choose to reply, please do so at my Talk Page. Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 01:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC))
{{ helpme}}
Can anyone answer two questions about the chart below?
Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 04:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC))
From: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro
Re: Help Me - Wikitable Colors
{{ helpme}}
Can anyone please tell me how exactly to add color to wiki tables ... for example, if I want one row or column to be red, another blue, etc ...? What is the exact command to do so? And where on Wikipedia do I find the colors and their codes, etc.?
When looking at some tables in Wikipedia articles, I see color commands such as the following (see below). Where on Wikipedia are all of these strange codes (that correspond to colors, I assume) listed?
Thanks! ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 20:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC))
Red | Green | Blue | Full code | Description | Color |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
FF | 00 | 00 | #FF0000 | Full red, nothing else | |
00 | FF | 00 | #00FF00 | Full green, nothing else | |
00 | 00 | FF | #0000FF | Full blue, nothing else | |
77 | 77 | 77 | #777777 | Some of each makes gray | |
00 | 00 | 00 | #000000 | No color makes black | |
FF | FF | FF | #FFFFFF | Full color makes white | |
FF | FF | 00 | #FFFF00 | Red and green make yellow | |
FF | 00 | FF | #FF00FF | Red and blue make magenta | |
00 | FF | FF | #00FFFF | Green and blue make that cyan | |
This | whole | row | is | yellow | ! |
Table with four spaces | Table with four nbsp's | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
Contents of center cell | |||||||
" " | " " |
{{helpme}}
If anyone is good with tables, I have a few questions about the following table that I am attempting to create.
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))
No. |
Name |
1st Award |
Year |
2nd Award |
Year |
3rd Award |
Year |
4th Award |
Year |
Span |
Age |
Academy |
Emmy |
Grammy |
Tony |
Total |
---|
1 | Richard Rodgers | Academy | 1945 | Tony | 1950 | Grammy | 1960 | Emmy | 1962 | 17 | 60 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 10 |
2 | Helen Hayes | Academy | 1932 | Tony | 1947 | Emmy | 1953 | Grammy | 1976 | 44 | 76 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 6 |
3 | Rita Moreno | Academy | 1961 | Grammy | 1972 | Tony | 1975 | Emmy | 1977 | 16 | 46 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
4 | John Gielgud | Tony | 1961 | Grammy | 1979 | Academy | 1981 | Emmy | 1991 | 30 | 87 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
5 | Audrey Hepburn | Academy | 1953 | Tony | 1954 | Emmy | 1993 | Grammy | 1994 | 41 | 65 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
6 | Marvin Hamlisch | Academy | 1973 | Grammy | 1974 | Tony | 1976 | Emmy | 1995 | 22 | 51 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 12 |
7 | Jonathan Tunick | Academy | 1977 | Emmy | 1982 | Grammy | 1988 | Tony | 1997 | 20 | 59 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
8 | Mel Brooks | Academy | 1968 | Emmy | 1997 | Grammy | 1998 | Tony | 2001 | 33 | 75 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 10 |
9 | Mike Nichols | Grammy | 1961 | Tony | 1964 | Academy | 1967 | Emmy | 2001 | 40 | 70 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 8 | 14 |
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)
It was a big typo. I wanted to type "del sp" (deleted spaces). I deleted spaces because it supposedly reduces page size. Sorry about being a bit fussy about two spaces after a sentence. Also, if you are not comfortable that I delete lines after each section, I'll stop. It was just a minor edit. — Andy W. ( talk/ contrb.) 23:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
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))
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))
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))
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))
A couple of weeks ago, User:209.163.146.95 rearranged the list of Oscar awards so that it provided "much more categorical understanding of the awards". [11] However, this user only added vertical spacing, and did not include any headers to indicate how exactly he was categorizing it. As a result, it appeared arbitrary to the average user who may not be familiar with the awards or film production in general. So therefore, I tried to assume what this user was thinking. So, yes, it is not an official categorization by the Academy. Feel free to change it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, re. deleting the Title section, I think I said why in my edit summary but I'm happy to eleborate. The Arthur Clarke press conference and the Voyage Beyond the Stars tidbit should be cited, like anything else on Wikipedia, and the How the Solar System Was Won and "Sentinal" stuff is already covered in the Writing subsection under Production. If you can find sources for the press conference and the Voyage part, it would make sense to insert them in the Writing subsection at the appropriate point(s). That section also talks about when and how Kubrick decided on the final title. I don't think there needs to be a separate section on it, certainly not one that repeats detail already in another section. If you want to discuss further, we should move this to the 2001 talk page, where other editors can join in with their thoughts if we don't come to agreement here. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 07:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I just added a reference, from Clarke's diary of the writing, at the end of the talk page for the film, but it says it was "Journey Beyond...", not "Voyage...", though he mentions disliking either choice. Don't have anything on the 1999 press conference. Cheers Wwheaton ( talk) 20:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The added spaces might have been useful under your screen, but it will not work for everybody. I hope you didn't mind that I deleted them. — Andy W. ( talk/ contrb.) 22:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Some technical details:
I hope you find this useful. Greetings. -- Tone 23:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Look what I just found: Template:Space ;-) Have fun, — Noah 06:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hey there, Joseph! I try to be fair and accurate as possibly. However, I get my sources from various places such as the Internet and newpapers. I also find ratings info in books as the library. However, I should warn you that all my sources post different ratings figures. One source posts the audience size for the 79th Awards as 39.9 million [12] while another lists it as 40.2 million [13]. Also, another issue is that the Los Angeles Times tends to include "double decimals" in their ratings ranks so the may list the viewers as 46.53 over 46.5.
By the way, here is a suggestion for organizing the winners of the Academy Awards for Acting. The format is similar to the article in Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actor - Comedy Series.
Year | Name | Film | Role |
---|---|---|---|
2007 ( 80th) |
Daniel Day-Lewis | There Will Be Blood | Daniel Plainview |
George Clooney | Michael Clayton | Michael Clayton | |
Johnny Depp | Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street | Sweeney Todd | |
Tommy Lee Jones | In the Valley of Elah | Hank Deerfield | |
Viggo Mortensen | Eastern Promises | Nikolai Luzhin |
This is just a suggestion. But it makes it a little easier to identify the winner. Birdienest81 ( talk) 16:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody help out with this portal. I'm sure there is room for improvements17:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{ User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.
A few features that you might find helpful:
There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:
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)
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'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)
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)
Yes, let's end this conversation. It's clear to me that I can't engage in any intelligent dialogue with you. Thanks. And happy editing on Wikipedia. If you really want to get a point across to someone in the future, please improve your communication skills. They truly suck. Thanks. We both agree to end this conversation. Don't reply. Thanks. Best to you. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 09:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC))
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))
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))
{{ 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))
{{ 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: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)
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)
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))
I'm tapping this message out to you because you were involved at the AfDs of Eve Carson or Lauren Burk. Following both of these heated debates, a new proposal has been made for a guideline to aid these contentious debates, which can be found at WP:N/CA. There is a page for comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions should you wish to make a comment. Thanks for your time, and apologies if this was not of interest! Fritzpoll ( talk) 15:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
Please remove inapproriate language from your edit here before you want someone to discuss that with you. Thanks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 07:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for proving my point. Gonna whine some more? Let me know! Thanks! JuJube ( talk) 07:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
{{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))
Joseph, I think I am trying to help you here and you are still asking questions like "how can i get them in trouble". We are not here to get people in trouble. Not at all. We work in collaboration and admins can be reported of course but if the community sees no problem or violation was made then we move on. This is a tool you can use to find out who is an admin and who is not. Again, please stop it and get back to work. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
{{ 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))
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))
Hello Joseph, you have started a thread on WP:ANI, alleging that a certain action of an admin was abusive behaviour. The original thread is now archived here. You got responses from four people: One asked for more details, and three said it was not abuse, and explained why they thought so. This noticeboard is being read regularly by hundreds of contributors to the project, with wildly varying backgrounds. Apparently none of them felt that the responses that you received were wrong to the point that it was necessary to contradict them. This is an example of what is called a consensus on Wikipedia.
You are not happy with the result, and being confused because the thread was archived, you asked again on ANI. At the time that I am writing this, you have received responses from seven editors, all of them clearly agreeing that it was not abuse; some of them are obviously getting irritated. Since there is no overlap between the people replying to those two posts, that's 10:0 with one abstention. (I am not counting you, and I am not counting the admin you accused and who didn't feel it necessary to reply in such an obvious case.) Again, nobody felt the need to step in on your side.
You know how to drive on a motorway, right? Now suppose you do everything right, and suddenly you find yourself in the rightmost lane in the situation of this picture. What do you do? -- Hans Adler ( talk) 10:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
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.
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)
I did not understand this edit. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 07:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
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.
- Warthog Demon 04:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
{{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))
{{ dts}} was changed to {{ dts2}} because the date format for {{ dts}} was changed in order to comply with ISO 8601, the date format used on Wikipedia. If you want, I can revert the change that I made - I made it because if it was not changed then it would be broken after the template changed. Gary King ( talk) 23:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
{{ helpme}}
When you create a Wikitable chart, it basically looks like this (below). How can I find out exactly what color code is used by default for that pink/red background in the first row -- the row that designates the column headings? Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 04:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC))
No. | Name | Date of Execution | Victims | Governor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Michael Ross | May 13, 2005 | Robin Stavinsky, April Brunais, Wendy Baribeault, and Leslie Shelley | M. Jodi Rell |
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)
{{helpme}}
No. | Name | Date of Execution | Victims | Governor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Michael Ross | May 13, 2005 | Robin Stavinsky, April Brunais, Wendy Baribeault, and Leslie Shelley | M. Jodi Rell |
Let's say that I create a Wikitable chart like this one above. I don't know much about these Tables ... but it is my understanding that using the computer "command" of class="wikitable" basically sets up a generic format chart / table. Thus, by default (through using that command, I guess), the header rows of the chart are automatically given that pink/reddish background color (hex code F2F2F2). Is there any way to change that color ... such that I have this same exact chart as above, with the only difference being a change to the background shading color of the top header row? Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 03:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
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 |
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 |
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 |
{{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))
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 strongly suggest you stop reverting before you get blocked for violating WP:3RR -- NeilN talk ♦ contribs 07:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I see that (you copied the warning here onto her page). So she has stopped reverting on her own. Yet you continue to revert. -- NeilN talk ♦ contribs 07:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
If another editor thinks her edits improve the article they can certainly put them back in. -- NeilN talk ♦ contribs 07:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
...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)
{{helpme}}
A user (Meachly) is harrassing me. And, to contravene the 3 revert rule, has enlisted a friend to make her edits ( or has made her edits under a different account name ). Or -- perhaps -- it is entirely coincidental that some independent third party has reverted the same exact 3 edits (in one fell swoop, no less) that Meachly has been edit warring about? Although, I suspect the latter is statistically impossible? Please advise? Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 07:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC))
I'm sorry that you think I'm harrassing you. When you say things like "why are you being such an f----king a---hole" [15], I feel offended. But notwithstanding that, I think you haven't shown any attempt to collaborate with me or other editors in the edits for [[Abigail Taylor]. So I've filed a complaint against you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. If you think I have acted out of turn, I suggest that you take that up with the administrator who deals with it. I'm sorry we haven't been able to get along. Meachly ( talk) 07:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
WP:CIVIL - this is not a suggestion, or guideline, but policy. Repeatedly making uncivil comments will lead to blocking. -- NeilN talk ♦ contribs 07:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
You may wish to note that chronic rudeness towards your fellow editors is grounds for temporary blocking. You may also wish to note that you're just about ONE post shy of hitting the "chronic" level. Stop insulting people. Now. -- erachima formerly tjstrf 08:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Joseph, you're misunderstanding some pretty basic things here. Let me try explaining: on Wikipedia, having slightly suboptimal wording in an article is far less of a problem than having a massive argument over that wording is. There are a variety of reasons for this, but at its most basic, it's simply a whole lot easier to tweak the wording later (when, say, you're going through
the Good Article process) than it is to find new editors because the old ones all burned out from stress.
So the question I'm asking myself here isn't "who is Right?", but rather "who is reacting the most aggressively?". And, ignoring User:Symode09, who was already chided by another user and seems to not be involved in the main argument anyway, that appears to be you. So please, calm down, and play nicely with the other children. -- erachima formerly tjstrf 09:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Until you have read and understood WP:CIVIL and generally understood the ethos of communal consensual editing, and promise to abide by those principles, your presence on the encyclopedia is disruptive and I have therefore removed your editing privileges. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 09:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
You are using this template in the wrong namespace. Use this template on your talk page instead.
Welcome back to editing Joseph. I'm glad that you weren't blocked indefinitely because I know that you can be a good writer and contributor here. However, just so we're clear on things, I had suggested here that you be given a short block so that you could rethink how you interact with other editors. I'm hoping that you've done that because your work at Abigail Taylor was good when you weren't going out of your way to piss people off. If you take a look at that article now, I think you'll be impressed by how it turned out. Even the editors that you and I disagreed with made useful contributions to it in the end. Wikipedia can be an exciting, and sometimes frustrating, project to work on. If you have any questions, or if there's anything I can help you with, please drop a note on my Talkpage. Happy editing! Doc Tropics 18:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
A request for comment has been initiated at Talk:List of the verified oldest people. As you have been involved in the issue, you may wish to comment there. Cheers, CP 00:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello. As far as posthumous nominations/awards in acting categories, the only nominee that you missed was Massimo Troisi. As far as posthumous nominations/awards in other categories, there are well over 50 or 60. The Academy does indeed maintain a list. Go to the following site: www.oscars.org. (It is dot ORG, not dot COM.) Click "Academy Awards Database". Click "Advanced Search". In this search box, simply put a check mark in the "posthumous" category ... and the database will return all posthumous nominations and awards (about 50-60 people, many with numerous nominations/awards apiece). You can also limit the search by any criteria you wish (for example, by award category, by year, by actor, by film, etc.) ... and the database will return only what satisfies your limited search criteria. Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 15:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC))
(de-indent) Hi Joseph. My point about the circumstances of the death was that in some cases, an actor has died during the shooting of their last film. Sometimes this has meant the film was never completed. In other cases, some scenes had to be done by a double, or someone with their back to the camera, or they used old footage, or they even altered the story line and other actors had to shoot newly invented scenes that had never been intended as part of the original screenplay. Where we can identify such details, it would be good to reveal some of the more interesting ones. In some cases, the filming was all finished a year or more before it was released, and they needed the intervening time for editing, etc. An actor or whoever could easily die well after finishing their involvement in the movie, but still a year or more before it was ever publicly shown, meaning 2 or more years before it was considered for nomination.
Comments on the table (in no particular order):
Thanks, Joseph. It looks great. I'll have a close inspection over the next few days but for now it seems to fill a much-needed gap. Excellent work. --
JackofOz (
talk) 00:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
NYScholar (
talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Appreciating your hard work in compiling this list, I have taken some time to add the (I think necessary) source citations in compliance with WP:V and WP:CITE (etc.) and annotated the links already added to the EL section. Thought that you might like to know this. These source citations and EL sec. should give you some working models for how to add citations and EL secs. (and possibly See also secs.) to some of the similar kinds of articles (lists) that you have been creating or are still working on. (If you wish to, please place further comments about editing this article on the talk page of the article, not on my talk page. Thanks.) -- NYScholar ( talk) 18:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
From: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro
Hello. I noticed that you have done a ton of work on the above-named article. Great job! You have done a lot of great work in this article. Thank you! I also noticed that you added a few questions and comments to the article's Talk Page. Your main concerns there seem to be whether or not to include Special and Honorary Academy Awards and, if so, how to include them in the article / list. I just wanted to let you know that I am actually in the process of revamping this article completely. By revamping, I should really say "reformatting" it. What I am doing is taking all of that same information --- but I am formatting it into a Chart / Table design layout. Within the Chart, I have included a column for "Special and Honorary Academy Awards". If you have a moment, can you please take a look at my new, reformatted Chart for this Wikipedia article? It is located here ---> User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page34. Thank you. Please remember that this is one of my current projects and, thus, it is a work in progress. It is nowhere near being complete. Please let me know what you think of my new format and if you have any comments, suggestions, feedback, input, criticisms, ideas, etc. I'd really like to hear your thoughts. Please feel free to reply at my Talk Page ---> User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro. Thanks in advance for your feedback ... and thanks again for all of your efforts in improving this article! Thank you. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 13:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC))
Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 07:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The
August 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 00:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 21:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The
September 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also note that after the roll call for active members, we've cleared the specialized delivery lists. Feel free to sign-up in the
relevant sections again!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 00:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The October 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have suggestions or comments related to the newsletter, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you and happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk) 09:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The November 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. My apologies for the late delivery, and thanks go to both Wildroot and Erik for writing the newsletter. Remember that anyone can edit the newsletter, so feel free to help out! Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 08:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The
December 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 03:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
As a member of
WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the
project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's
coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 04:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject Films newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you and happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 20:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, just so you know, I changed your at 81st Academy Awards in which you changed my edit of "thirteen" to 13. Per MOS, bullet point #2 (and general grammar rules), you don't write something like "42 and ten" but "forty-two and ten" or "42 and 10". Mixing them is bad practice. Just FYI. Thanks. ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 23:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
We haven't talked in quite a while and I know you're pretty busy with other projects, I've seen your sandbox, lots of castles in there, but anyway since we've talked on this article quite a lot I thought I might run this by you before putting it in use, on the List of television programs by episode count, I've thought of putting in a Country of Origin column which I'm actually working on right now and I pretty much wanted your thoughts on it before I actually go ahead and make it final, oh and btw I have been working on the article again for the past few days afkatk ( talk) 14:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
In response to Jerry Lewis' quote, it was: "I shall pass through this world but once. Any good, therefore, that I can do or any kindness that I can show to any human being, let me do it now. Let me not defer nor neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again!" Thanks!-- Snowman Guy ( talk) 18:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
On another subject, I think that a "Notable events" section should be added to the article, but am unsure exactly which events in the telecast should be notable. Comments?-- Snowman Guy ( talk) 19:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I've now tryed to improve the article much more by re-formatting the "Presenters and Performers" section into tables and by building up the "Notable events" section. I would like to have some suggestions (or comments) on how the said sections could furthr be improved. Thoughts? Thanks!-- Snowman Guy ( talk) 03:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
{{ helpme}}
Let's say that I want to look at an old question from a few days ago (or a few weeks ago) ... on one of the Wikipedia Reference Desks. Let's just say, on the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science, for example. I know where I can go to look at the current questions. Where exactly do I go to find the old / archived questions? Thank you. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 21:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC))
The February 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 00:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I have two questions about the Film Project Group ... and I believe that you are the head of that group. Please reply. (1) Does Wikipedia have any sort of rules / policies / guidelines / etc. regarding the creation of an article (or page) that is simply a collection or listing of other Wikipedia articles? For example ... if I want to create on one page an article that lists all of the Wikipedia articles that are related to the Academy Awards ... is that something that is do-able ... and what are the guidelines for doing so? If you want an example of what I mean, please take a look at this sandbox page of mine (which I am currently working on and is certainly not finished): User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page36. (2) My second question is ... how does an editor (like me) make changes/edits to a template or an info box? For example, see the info box at the top right of this page: 81st Academy Awards. If I wanted to edit that to read "Most Awards" instead of "Most Wins" ... how would I do that? Thank you. Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 23:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC))
Check on posthumous issue and notable nominations. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 06:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
{{helpme}}
Can anyone help with this question? Thanks in advance. Please take a look at the list below. You can also take a look at the Wikipedia "code" that generates this list below, if you'd like, by hitting the "edit" link to the right above. My question is this. Is there any way to make the second column of the list simply continue the numerical count, without starting over at "1"? If so, what is the way to accomplish that? In other words, I would like the second half of the list, on the right hand side, to begin with the numbers 19, 20, 21, and so on. Any advice? Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 01:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC))
Have you consider reformatting the pages for the acting Oscar winners and Best Picture in the style of the Best Director page? I've also thought about including the winners' pictures, but that may be too much. Jzummak ( talk) 02:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The March 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 00:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
{{helpme}}
Please help. Thanks in advance. Does anyone know the correct way to format text in Wikipedia, so that it duplicates what one might think of as a "tab key" on a manual typewriter? It would be used when I want a column of information to "line up" neatly. Here is an example below. Since I don't know how to create a "tab" to align the columns ... I just used extraneous periods instead (just to give an idea of what I am trying to accomplish). I would like to align the columns (like in the example below -- but without all the periods that I typed in as "space" fillers). I am familiar with the " & nbsp ; " (non-breaking space) command. And I am familiar with the ability to create bullets with the " * " (asterisk) command or the " # " (number) command. But, those are not what I am talking about, here. Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 16:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC))
Winners:...........................Person A
........................................Person B
........................................Person C
Runners up:......................Person D
........................................Person E
........................................Person F
Honorable Mention:...........Person G
.......................................Person H
.......................................Person I
To be very specific ... this (below) is what I am trying to "fix" / improve ... in the article 2009 Oakland police shootings.
THIS IS THE TEXT CURRENTLY: Article: 2009 Oakland police shootings
During this incident, four police officers were killed in the line of duty, while an additional officer was injured.
Killed:
Injured:
What I Want It To Look Like (If Possible): ... ......... ( sort of ) what I have below ... but as long as the columns align neatly.
During this incident, four police officers were killed in the line of duty, while an additional officer was injured.
Killed: * Motorcycle Sergeant Mark Dunakin, age 40, had been with the Oakland Police Department since 1991. [1]
Injured: * SWAT Sergeant Pat Gonzales was shot through the left shoulder and had a second bullet ricochet off his helmet. [6]
Any ideas? Thanks. (
Joseph A. Spadaro (
talk) 18:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC))
Try this:
Foo | Bar | Baz |
---|---|---|
Mork | Mindy | Ork |
Just add whatever headers/rows you want. As a side note, would you perhaps consider archiving your talkpage? It takes a while to load. // roux 18:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea why you removed that, but it is quite literally precisely what you want. Just add rows/columns as needed, and fiddle with the size if you like. Again, please consider archiving your talkpage as it is incredibly unwieldy to load. // roux 19:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
{{ 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))
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))
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)
To: User talk:StuRat and User talk:Lomn
From: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro
Re: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics#Simple Math Question -- Need Help -- Leap Years (?)
Can someone please help me with this simple math calculation? I can't understand it and it's driving me crazy. Any insight is appreciated. Thanks.
Method One
According to Microsoft Excel: A lived 17,260 days and B lived 17,259 days.
That seems to make "sense" since ... although in different calendar years ... they were both born on the same "day" (December 18) but Person A lived an extra day in March (dying on March 21 instead of March 20) while Person B did not live for that extra day in March (dying on March 20 instead of March 21). So, it makes sense that the March 21 decedent (Person A) has lived one extra day more than the March 20 decedent (Person B) ... that is, Person A lived 17,260 days which is one day more than Person B who lived 17,259 days.
So, the only thing that is truly "different" between Person A and B is ... the actual calendar years that they lived through ... and thus "how many leap years / leap days did each person live through." (I think?)
Person A has lived through 12 leap days: in 1948, 1952, 1956, 1960, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992.
Person B has lived through 12 leap days: in 1908, 1912, 1916, 1920, 1924, 1928, 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948, and 1952.
Using Method One (above), Person A lived one extra day more than Person B.
Method Two
Person A: From December 18, 1946 to December 18, 1993 is exactly 47 years. So, A celebrates his 47th birthday. The date of death on March 21, 1994 is 93 days after the birthday. (using Excel or viewing a calendar)
Person B: From December 18, 1904 to December 18, 1951 is exactly 47 years. So, B celebrates his 47th birthday. The date of death on March 20, 1952 is 93 days after the birthday. (using Excel or viewing a calendar)
Using Method Two (above), Person A lives 47 years and 93 days. Person B also lives 47 years and 93 days. (There is no "one day" difference.)
Method Three
I tried to use the Wikipedia template located at: Template:age in years and days.
Typing in these dates and values yields the following results:
Person A:
{{age in years and days|1946|12|18|1994|03|21}}
yields:
47 years, 93 days
Person B:
{{age in years and days|1904|12|18|1952|03|20}}
yields:
47 years, 93 days
So, Method Three (above) agrees with Method Two (above) ... Person A and Person B died at exactly the same age.
Method Four
I also tried to use the Wikipedia template located at: Template:age in days.
Typing in these dates and values yields the following results:
Person A:
{{age in days|1946|12|18|1994|03|21}}
yields:
17260
Person B:
{{age in days|1904|12|18|1952|03|20}}
yields:
17259
So, Method Four (above) agrees with Method One (above) ... Person A and Person B did not die at exactly the same age, but one day off.
Question
Can anyone help me understand the difference / distinction / discrepancy between these four methods? I seem to be missing something, but I cannot figure out what. Thanks. Where is my reasoning flawed?
Method One and Four agree that "A" lives one day longer than "B". (17,260 versus 17,259)
Methods Two and Three agree that "A" and "B" live exactly the same length of time. (47 years and 93 days)
So, perhaps the word "year" means a different thing for Person A than it does for Person B?
That is, the word "year" means 365 days in some cases ... but it means 366 days in some other (leap-year) cases.
That might seem to cause the discrepancy.
However, Person "A" has lived during 12 leap years/days ... and Person "B" has also lived during 12 leap year/days.
Thus, for both persons, the word "year" means 366 days in 12 years of their lives ... and the word "year" means 365 days in the other 36 years of their lives. They have both lived through 12 leap years and 35 normal years (thus, a birthday of 47 years total) ... plus a fractional piece of yet another (i.e., their 48th) year.
Can anyone help me understand the difference / distinction / discrepancy between these four methods? I seem to be missing something, but I cannot figure out what.
Where is my thinking flawed? Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro 05:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC))
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))
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))
Re: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Verb tense
Hello. You had contributed to the above discussion thread. Thanks. I wonder if I may ask you a follow-up question or two? First, to be honest, I can make neither heads nor tails out of what anyone said in that discussion. Can you simplify the concept in a way that I can understand? Thanks. Second, you confused me on one issue, as well. You seemed to make a distinction between saying that someone "set" a record versus "held" a record. Anyone who "sets" a record also "holds" the record ... no? Am I missing something? You seemed to make a critical distinction between the two, and I guess that I am not seeing it. Let's say that John Smith sets the record for most donuts ever eaten, at 100 donuts. John Smith sets the record and he also holds the record ... no? He is the record-setter and the record-holder ... no? Or are you simply saying that, after he sets the record --- yes, he is the record holder --- that is, until the next person breaks it. Is that what you meant? That setting a record is permanent while holding it is temporary? Thanks. If you choose to reply, please do so at my Talk Page. Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 01:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC))
{{ helpme}}
Can anyone answer two questions about the chart below?
Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 04:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC))
From: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro
Re: Help Me - Wikitable Colors
{{ helpme}}
Can anyone please tell me how exactly to add color to wiki tables ... for example, if I want one row or column to be red, another blue, etc ...? What is the exact command to do so? And where on Wikipedia do I find the colors and their codes, etc.?
When looking at some tables in Wikipedia articles, I see color commands such as the following (see below). Where on Wikipedia are all of these strange codes (that correspond to colors, I assume) listed?
Thanks! ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 20:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC))
Red | Green | Blue | Full code | Description | Color |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
FF | 00 | 00 | #FF0000 | Full red, nothing else | |
00 | FF | 00 | #00FF00 | Full green, nothing else | |
00 | 00 | FF | #0000FF | Full blue, nothing else | |
77 | 77 | 77 | #777777 | Some of each makes gray | |
00 | 00 | 00 | #000000 | No color makes black | |
FF | FF | FF | #FFFFFF | Full color makes white | |
FF | FF | 00 | #FFFF00 | Red and green make yellow | |
FF | 00 | FF | #FF00FF | Red and blue make magenta | |
00 | FF | FF | #00FFFF | Green and blue make that cyan | |
This | whole | row | is | yellow | ! |
Table with four spaces | Table with four nbsp's | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
Contents of center cell | |||||||
" " | " " |
{{helpme}}
If anyone is good with tables, I have a few questions about the following table that I am attempting to create.
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))
No. |
Name |
1st Award |
Year |
2nd Award |
Year |
3rd Award |
Year |
4th Award |
Year |
Span |
Age |
Academy |
Emmy |
Grammy |
Tony |
Total |
---|
1 | Richard Rodgers | Academy | 1945 | Tony | 1950 | Grammy | 1960 | Emmy | 1962 | 17 | 60 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 10 |
2 | Helen Hayes | Academy | 1932 | Tony | 1947 | Emmy | 1953 | Grammy | 1976 | 44 | 76 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 6 |
3 | Rita Moreno | Academy | 1961 | Grammy | 1972 | Tony | 1975 | Emmy | 1977 | 16 | 46 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
4 | John Gielgud | Tony | 1961 | Grammy | 1979 | Academy | 1981 | Emmy | 1991 | 30 | 87 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
5 | Audrey Hepburn | Academy | 1953 | Tony | 1954 | Emmy | 1993 | Grammy | 1994 | 41 | 65 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
6 | Marvin Hamlisch | Academy | 1973 | Grammy | 1974 | Tony | 1976 | Emmy | 1995 | 22 | 51 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 12 |
7 | Jonathan Tunick | Academy | 1977 | Emmy | 1982 | Grammy | 1988 | Tony | 1997 | 20 | 59 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
8 | Mel Brooks | Academy | 1968 | Emmy | 1997 | Grammy | 1998 | Tony | 2001 | 33 | 75 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 10 |
9 | Mike Nichols | Grammy | 1961 | Tony | 1964 | Academy | 1967 | Emmy | 2001 | 40 | 70 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 8 | 14 |
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)
It was a big typo. I wanted to type "del sp" (deleted spaces). I deleted spaces because it supposedly reduces page size. Sorry about being a bit fussy about two spaces after a sentence. Also, if you are not comfortable that I delete lines after each section, I'll stop. It was just a minor edit. — Andy W. ( talk/ contrb.) 23:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
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))
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))
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))
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))
A couple of weeks ago, User:209.163.146.95 rearranged the list of Oscar awards so that it provided "much more categorical understanding of the awards". [11] However, this user only added vertical spacing, and did not include any headers to indicate how exactly he was categorizing it. As a result, it appeared arbitrary to the average user who may not be familiar with the awards or film production in general. So therefore, I tried to assume what this user was thinking. So, yes, it is not an official categorization by the Academy. Feel free to change it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, re. deleting the Title section, I think I said why in my edit summary but I'm happy to eleborate. The Arthur Clarke press conference and the Voyage Beyond the Stars tidbit should be cited, like anything else on Wikipedia, and the How the Solar System Was Won and "Sentinal" stuff is already covered in the Writing subsection under Production. If you can find sources for the press conference and the Voyage part, it would make sense to insert them in the Writing subsection at the appropriate point(s). That section also talks about when and how Kubrick decided on the final title. I don't think there needs to be a separate section on it, certainly not one that repeats detail already in another section. If you want to discuss further, we should move this to the 2001 talk page, where other editors can join in with their thoughts if we don't come to agreement here. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 07:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I just added a reference, from Clarke's diary of the writing, at the end of the talk page for the film, but it says it was "Journey Beyond...", not "Voyage...", though he mentions disliking either choice. Don't have anything on the 1999 press conference. Cheers Wwheaton ( talk) 20:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The added spaces might have been useful under your screen, but it will not work for everybody. I hope you didn't mind that I deleted them. — Andy W. ( talk/ contrb.) 22:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Some technical details:
I hope you find this useful. Greetings. -- Tone 23:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Look what I just found: Template:Space ;-) Have fun, — Noah 06:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hey there, Joseph! I try to be fair and accurate as possibly. However, I get my sources from various places such as the Internet and newpapers. I also find ratings info in books as the library. However, I should warn you that all my sources post different ratings figures. One source posts the audience size for the 79th Awards as 39.9 million [12] while another lists it as 40.2 million [13]. Also, another issue is that the Los Angeles Times tends to include "double decimals" in their ratings ranks so the may list the viewers as 46.53 over 46.5.
By the way, here is a suggestion for organizing the winners of the Academy Awards for Acting. The format is similar to the article in Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actor - Comedy Series.
Year | Name | Film | Role |
---|---|---|---|
2007 ( 80th) |
Daniel Day-Lewis | There Will Be Blood | Daniel Plainview |
George Clooney | Michael Clayton | Michael Clayton | |
Johnny Depp | Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street | Sweeney Todd | |
Tommy Lee Jones | In the Valley of Elah | Hank Deerfield | |
Viggo Mortensen | Eastern Promises | Nikolai Luzhin |
This is just a suggestion. But it makes it a little easier to identify the winner. Birdienest81 ( talk) 16:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody help out with this portal. I'm sure there is room for improvements17:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{ User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.
A few features that you might find helpful:
There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:
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)
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'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)
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)
Yes, let's end this conversation. It's clear to me that I can't engage in any intelligent dialogue with you. Thanks. And happy editing on Wikipedia. If you really want to get a point across to someone in the future, please improve your communication skills. They truly suck. Thanks. We both agree to end this conversation. Don't reply. Thanks. Best to you. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 09:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC))
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))
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))
{{ 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))
{{ 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: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)
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)
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))
I'm tapping this message out to you because you were involved at the AfDs of Eve Carson or Lauren Burk. Following both of these heated debates, a new proposal has been made for a guideline to aid these contentious debates, which can be found at WP:N/CA. There is a page for comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions should you wish to make a comment. Thanks for your time, and apologies if this was not of interest! Fritzpoll ( talk) 15:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
Please remove inapproriate language from your edit here before you want someone to discuss that with you. Thanks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 07:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for proving my point. Gonna whine some more? Let me know! Thanks! JuJube ( talk) 07:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
{{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))
Joseph, I think I am trying to help you here and you are still asking questions like "how can i get them in trouble". We are not here to get people in trouble. Not at all. We work in collaboration and admins can be reported of course but if the community sees no problem or violation was made then we move on. This is a tool you can use to find out who is an admin and who is not. Again, please stop it and get back to work. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
{{ 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))
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))
Hello Joseph, you have started a thread on WP:ANI, alleging that a certain action of an admin was abusive behaviour. The original thread is now archived here. You got responses from four people: One asked for more details, and three said it was not abuse, and explained why they thought so. This noticeboard is being read regularly by hundreds of contributors to the project, with wildly varying backgrounds. Apparently none of them felt that the responses that you received were wrong to the point that it was necessary to contradict them. This is an example of what is called a consensus on Wikipedia.
You are not happy with the result, and being confused because the thread was archived, you asked again on ANI. At the time that I am writing this, you have received responses from seven editors, all of them clearly agreeing that it was not abuse; some of them are obviously getting irritated. Since there is no overlap between the people replying to those two posts, that's 10:0 with one abstention. (I am not counting you, and I am not counting the admin you accused and who didn't feel it necessary to reply in such an obvious case.) Again, nobody felt the need to step in on your side.
You know how to drive on a motorway, right? Now suppose you do everything right, and suddenly you find yourself in the rightmost lane in the situation of this picture. What do you do? -- Hans Adler ( talk) 10:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
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.
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)
I did not understand this edit. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 07:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
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.
- Warthog Demon 04:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
{{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))
{{ dts}} was changed to {{ dts2}} because the date format for {{ dts}} was changed in order to comply with ISO 8601, the date format used on Wikipedia. If you want, I can revert the change that I made - I made it because if it was not changed then it would be broken after the template changed. Gary King ( talk) 23:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
{{ helpme}}
When you create a Wikitable chart, it basically looks like this (below). How can I find out exactly what color code is used by default for that pink/red background in the first row -- the row that designates the column headings? Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 04:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC))
No. | Name | Date of Execution | Victims | Governor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Michael Ross | May 13, 2005 | Robin Stavinsky, April Brunais, Wendy Baribeault, and Leslie Shelley | M. Jodi Rell |
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)
{{helpme}}
No. | Name | Date of Execution | Victims | Governor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Michael Ross | May 13, 2005 | Robin Stavinsky, April Brunais, Wendy Baribeault, and Leslie Shelley | M. Jodi Rell |
Let's say that I create a Wikitable chart like this one above. I don't know much about these Tables ... but it is my understanding that using the computer "command" of class="wikitable" basically sets up a generic format chart / table. Thus, by default (through using that command, I guess), the header rows of the chart are automatically given that pink/reddish background color (hex code F2F2F2). Is there any way to change that color ... such that I have this same exact chart as above, with the only difference being a change to the background shading color of the top header row? Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 03:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
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 |
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 |
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 |
{{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))
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 strongly suggest you stop reverting before you get blocked for violating WP:3RR -- NeilN talk ♦ contribs 07:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I see that (you copied the warning here onto her page). So she has stopped reverting on her own. Yet you continue to revert. -- NeilN talk ♦ contribs 07:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
If another editor thinks her edits improve the article they can certainly put them back in. -- NeilN talk ♦ contribs 07:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
...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)
{{helpme}}
A user (Meachly) is harrassing me. And, to contravene the 3 revert rule, has enlisted a friend to make her edits ( or has made her edits under a different account name ). Or -- perhaps -- it is entirely coincidental that some independent third party has reverted the same exact 3 edits (in one fell swoop, no less) that Meachly has been edit warring about? Although, I suspect the latter is statistically impossible? Please advise? Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 07:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC))
I'm sorry that you think I'm harrassing you. When you say things like "why are you being such an f----king a---hole" [15], I feel offended. But notwithstanding that, I think you haven't shown any attempt to collaborate with me or other editors in the edits for [[Abigail Taylor]. So I've filed a complaint against you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. If you think I have acted out of turn, I suggest that you take that up with the administrator who deals with it. I'm sorry we haven't been able to get along. Meachly ( talk) 07:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
WP:CIVIL - this is not a suggestion, or guideline, but policy. Repeatedly making uncivil comments will lead to blocking. -- NeilN talk ♦ contribs 07:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
You may wish to note that chronic rudeness towards your fellow editors is grounds for temporary blocking. You may also wish to note that you're just about ONE post shy of hitting the "chronic" level. Stop insulting people. Now. -- erachima formerly tjstrf 08:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Joseph, you're misunderstanding some pretty basic things here. Let me try explaining: on Wikipedia, having slightly suboptimal wording in an article is far less of a problem than having a massive argument over that wording is. There are a variety of reasons for this, but at its most basic, it's simply a whole lot easier to tweak the wording later (when, say, you're going through
the Good Article process) than it is to find new editors because the old ones all burned out from stress.
So the question I'm asking myself here isn't "who is Right?", but rather "who is reacting the most aggressively?". And, ignoring User:Symode09, who was already chided by another user and seems to not be involved in the main argument anyway, that appears to be you. So please, calm down, and play nicely with the other children. -- erachima formerly tjstrf 09:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Until you have read and understood WP:CIVIL and generally understood the ethos of communal consensual editing, and promise to abide by those principles, your presence on the encyclopedia is disruptive and I have therefore removed your editing privileges. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 09:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
You are using this template in the wrong namespace. Use this template on your talk page instead.
Welcome back to editing Joseph. I'm glad that you weren't blocked indefinitely because I know that you can be a good writer and contributor here. However, just so we're clear on things, I had suggested here that you be given a short block so that you could rethink how you interact with other editors. I'm hoping that you've done that because your work at Abigail Taylor was good when you weren't going out of your way to piss people off. If you take a look at that article now, I think you'll be impressed by how it turned out. Even the editors that you and I disagreed with made useful contributions to it in the end. Wikipedia can be an exciting, and sometimes frustrating, project to work on. If you have any questions, or if there's anything I can help you with, please drop a note on my Talkpage. Happy editing! Doc Tropics 18:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
A request for comment has been initiated at Talk:List of the verified oldest people. As you have been involved in the issue, you may wish to comment there. Cheers, CP 00:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello. As far as posthumous nominations/awards in acting categories, the only nominee that you missed was Massimo Troisi. As far as posthumous nominations/awards in other categories, there are well over 50 or 60. The Academy does indeed maintain a list. Go to the following site: www.oscars.org. (It is dot ORG, not dot COM.) Click "Academy Awards Database". Click "Advanced Search". In this search box, simply put a check mark in the "posthumous" category ... and the database will return all posthumous nominations and awards (about 50-60 people, many with numerous nominations/awards apiece). You can also limit the search by any criteria you wish (for example, by award category, by year, by actor, by film, etc.) ... and the database will return only what satisfies your limited search criteria. Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 15:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC))
(de-indent) Hi Joseph. My point about the circumstances of the death was that in some cases, an actor has died during the shooting of their last film. Sometimes this has meant the film was never completed. In other cases, some scenes had to be done by a double, or someone with their back to the camera, or they used old footage, or they even altered the story line and other actors had to shoot newly invented scenes that had never been intended as part of the original screenplay. Where we can identify such details, it would be good to reveal some of the more interesting ones. In some cases, the filming was all finished a year or more before it was released, and they needed the intervening time for editing, etc. An actor or whoever could easily die well after finishing their involvement in the movie, but still a year or more before it was ever publicly shown, meaning 2 or more years before it was considered for nomination.
Comments on the table (in no particular order):
Thanks, Joseph. It looks great. I'll have a close inspection over the next few days but for now it seems to fill a much-needed gap. Excellent work. --
JackofOz (
talk) 00:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
NYScholar (
talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Appreciating your hard work in compiling this list, I have taken some time to add the (I think necessary) source citations in compliance with WP:V and WP:CITE (etc.) and annotated the links already added to the EL section. Thought that you might like to know this. These source citations and EL sec. should give you some working models for how to add citations and EL secs. (and possibly See also secs.) to some of the similar kinds of articles (lists) that you have been creating or are still working on. (If you wish to, please place further comments about editing this article on the talk page of the article, not on my talk page. Thanks.) -- NYScholar ( talk) 18:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
From: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro
Hello. I noticed that you have done a ton of work on the above-named article. Great job! You have done a lot of great work in this article. Thank you! I also noticed that you added a few questions and comments to the article's Talk Page. Your main concerns there seem to be whether or not to include Special and Honorary Academy Awards and, if so, how to include them in the article / list. I just wanted to let you know that I am actually in the process of revamping this article completely. By revamping, I should really say "reformatting" it. What I am doing is taking all of that same information --- but I am formatting it into a Chart / Table design layout. Within the Chart, I have included a column for "Special and Honorary Academy Awards". If you have a moment, can you please take a look at my new, reformatted Chart for this Wikipedia article? It is located here ---> User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page34. Thank you. Please remember that this is one of my current projects and, thus, it is a work in progress. It is nowhere near being complete. Please let me know what you think of my new format and if you have any comments, suggestions, feedback, input, criticisms, ideas, etc. I'd really like to hear your thoughts. Please feel free to reply at my Talk Page ---> User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro. Thanks in advance for your feedback ... and thanks again for all of your efforts in improving this article! Thank you. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 13:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC))
Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 07:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The
August 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 00:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 21:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The
September 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also note that after the roll call for active members, we've cleared the specialized delivery lists. Feel free to sign-up in the
relevant sections again!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 00:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The October 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have suggestions or comments related to the newsletter, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you and happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk) 09:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The November 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. My apologies for the late delivery, and thanks go to both Wildroot and Erik for writing the newsletter. Remember that anyone can edit the newsletter, so feel free to help out! Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 08:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The
December 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 03:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
As a member of
WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the
project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's
coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 04:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject Films newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you and happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 20:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, just so you know, I changed your at 81st Academy Awards in which you changed my edit of "thirteen" to 13. Per MOS, bullet point #2 (and general grammar rules), you don't write something like "42 and ten" but "forty-two and ten" or "42 and 10". Mixing them is bad practice. Just FYI. Thanks. ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 23:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
We haven't talked in quite a while and I know you're pretty busy with other projects, I've seen your sandbox, lots of castles in there, but anyway since we've talked on this article quite a lot I thought I might run this by you before putting it in use, on the List of television programs by episode count, I've thought of putting in a Country of Origin column which I'm actually working on right now and I pretty much wanted your thoughts on it before I actually go ahead and make it final, oh and btw I have been working on the article again for the past few days afkatk ( talk) 14:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
In response to Jerry Lewis' quote, it was: "I shall pass through this world but once. Any good, therefore, that I can do or any kindness that I can show to any human being, let me do it now. Let me not defer nor neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again!" Thanks!-- Snowman Guy ( talk) 18:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
On another subject, I think that a "Notable events" section should be added to the article, but am unsure exactly which events in the telecast should be notable. Comments?-- Snowman Guy ( talk) 19:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I've now tryed to improve the article much more by re-formatting the "Presenters and Performers" section into tables and by building up the "Notable events" section. I would like to have some suggestions (or comments) on how the said sections could furthr be improved. Thoughts? Thanks!-- Snowman Guy ( talk) 03:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
{{ helpme}}
Let's say that I want to look at an old question from a few days ago (or a few weeks ago) ... on one of the Wikipedia Reference Desks. Let's just say, on the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science, for example. I know where I can go to look at the current questions. Where exactly do I go to find the old / archived questions? Thank you. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 21:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC))
The February 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 00:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I have two questions about the Film Project Group ... and I believe that you are the head of that group. Please reply. (1) Does Wikipedia have any sort of rules / policies / guidelines / etc. regarding the creation of an article (or page) that is simply a collection or listing of other Wikipedia articles? For example ... if I want to create on one page an article that lists all of the Wikipedia articles that are related to the Academy Awards ... is that something that is do-able ... and what are the guidelines for doing so? If you want an example of what I mean, please take a look at this sandbox page of mine (which I am currently working on and is certainly not finished): User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page36. (2) My second question is ... how does an editor (like me) make changes/edits to a template or an info box? For example, see the info box at the top right of this page: 81st Academy Awards. If I wanted to edit that to read "Most Awards" instead of "Most Wins" ... how would I do that? Thank you. Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 23:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC))
Check on posthumous issue and notable nominations. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 06:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
{{helpme}}
Can anyone help with this question? Thanks in advance. Please take a look at the list below. You can also take a look at the Wikipedia "code" that generates this list below, if you'd like, by hitting the "edit" link to the right above. My question is this. Is there any way to make the second column of the list simply continue the numerical count, without starting over at "1"? If so, what is the way to accomplish that? In other words, I would like the second half of the list, on the right hand side, to begin with the numbers 19, 20, 21, and so on. Any advice? Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 01:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC))
Have you consider reformatting the pages for the acting Oscar winners and Best Picture in the style of the Best Director page? I've also thought about including the winners' pictures, but that may be too much. Jzummak ( talk) 02:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The March 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 00:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
{{helpme}}
Please help. Thanks in advance. Does anyone know the correct way to format text in Wikipedia, so that it duplicates what one might think of as a "tab key" on a manual typewriter? It would be used when I want a column of information to "line up" neatly. Here is an example below. Since I don't know how to create a "tab" to align the columns ... I just used extraneous periods instead (just to give an idea of what I am trying to accomplish). I would like to align the columns (like in the example below -- but without all the periods that I typed in as "space" fillers). I am familiar with the " & nbsp ; " (non-breaking space) command. And I am familiar with the ability to create bullets with the " * " (asterisk) command or the " # " (number) command. But, those are not what I am talking about, here. Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 16:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC))
Winners:...........................Person A
........................................Person B
........................................Person C
Runners up:......................Person D
........................................Person E
........................................Person F
Honorable Mention:...........Person G
.......................................Person H
.......................................Person I
To be very specific ... this (below) is what I am trying to "fix" / improve ... in the article 2009 Oakland police shootings.
THIS IS THE TEXT CURRENTLY: Article: 2009 Oakland police shootings
During this incident, four police officers were killed in the line of duty, while an additional officer was injured.
Killed:
Injured:
What I Want It To Look Like (If Possible): ... ......... ( sort of ) what I have below ... but as long as the columns align neatly.
During this incident, four police officers were killed in the line of duty, while an additional officer was injured.
Killed: * Motorcycle Sergeant Mark Dunakin, age 40, had been with the Oakland Police Department since 1991. [1]
Injured: * SWAT Sergeant Pat Gonzales was shot through the left shoulder and had a second bullet ricochet off his helmet. [6]
Any ideas? Thanks. (
Joseph A. Spadaro (
talk) 18:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC))
Try this:
Foo | Bar | Baz |
---|---|---|
Mork | Mindy | Ork |
Just add whatever headers/rows you want. As a side note, would you perhaps consider archiving your talkpage? It takes a while to load. // roux 18:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea why you removed that, but it is quite literally precisely what you want. Just add rows/columns as needed, and fiddle with the size if you like. Again, please consider archiving your talkpage as it is incredibly unwieldy to load. // roux 19:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)