Joseph A. Spadaro – My Talk Page


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Hello, my friend[edit]

Yes, it has been a while. My break didn't last long, or you could say it's not absolute. I couldn't believe the troubles I see reflected on your talk page. I know you to be reasonable, and I reviewed the circumstances of the conversation which led to your block. Needless to say I was a bit disenchanted. You, like me, appear to be a strong advocate for your side of a debate. While not unwilling to listen to an opposing view, you are not swayed unless the argument is particularly strong, and sound. The funny thing is I remember working differences with you, and found the debate quite refreshing. I think we both accepted parts of the others valid considerations and moved forward with good intentions.

There is another irony. I just had an RfA and got hammered because of this similar tendency. The irony gets even deeper when you realize that I stated the Cheshire Connecticut article as a proud accomplishment and my reason for stating that was because I was proud of the collaboration which achieved the result. I had already decided I wasn't going to take undue credit for what was a joint effort by several players. My first protagonist was intent to make me compare my efforts to others. Here is a quote: "I want to know how much he did versus Joseph Spadaro" I held my ground, got the shit kicked out of me and if I would have been gone it would be the RfA that took me out.

Yes it is an irony of ironies that you should have messaged me when you did. And I don't mind telling you that you, or me, will not be appreciated much; Because many in authority want to tell you how to think and expect that you will follow. I think you would enjoy seeing me destroyed by the bullshit, and the ironic part is it started because I didn't want to play the comparison game. Good talking to you again. For context here is my RfA, Find within my stated accomplishments "Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders is a collaboration of which I am most proud. It really is a textbook example of people coming together from different walks, to collaborate on a high profile story that deserved the benefit of a proper telling. Even when you review the talkpages you can see dispute resolution and cooperation which manifest in a pretty good telling of a particularly hard story to tell" and know that it was you I had in mind when writing that. And you can search your name to see how I was hounded to define further my involvement. And that I stuck to my original statement of the cited collaboration.

It is a very terrible aspect of Wikipedia that if two people oppose in views, one has to be the bad guy. And there seems to be a tendency for it to be pinned on the one who makes the better argument. Anyway, I respect your manner and feel shame that your were blocked until you were made to say those pithy words. That you wouldn't do it again. My strong advice is, to not do it again, but for a different reason. Some minds are so thick, it truly is a waste of your own effort to form the good argument. So my friend, let's both endeavor to remain sane during these insane times. And do know there is a larger irony in play. Cheers My76Strat (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, there, my friend! I apologize that my response to your above post has been so delayed. But, I am the type who would rather respond fully and deliberately (albeit, perhaps, belatedly) versus just sending off a quick response that is not, err, particularly responsive. If you know what I mean. Thanks for the kind words above. I do appreciate them. I must admit, the ironies (and layers upon layers of further irony) did not escape me. It was really quite bizarre that I had messaged you only an hour or so after you decided to retire. (What are the odds of that?) Well, I am glad that you came back and that your retirement was short-lived! I agree with what you posted above in your Talk Page message to me. We seem to be cut from the same cloth. I am a lawyer by trade, and very left-brained, to boot. (And an Aries, at that!) (And a middle child by birth order!) For those not in the know ... this is a lethal combination ... which all means that I do cogitate over arguments. I am quite deliberative. I will not generally support a position unless I am fully convinced of it. And, at that point, I defend my position zealously. Some may call that arrogant or opinionated. (I've been accused of both.) I just see it as strong advocacy for a position in which I believe. I agree with you ... sometimes, that is all for naught. I recognize that one's greatest strengths can also be his greatest weaknesses. And, sometimes, we have to pick and choose which battles we decide to battle. And, it took me many years to learn ... you can win the battle, but lose the war. What do they call that ...? A Pyrrhic victory, I think? I did review that RfA discussion that you referenced above. I had to chuckle to myself when I saw that my name had come up, in terms of the Cheshire article. The whole time, though, I am scratching my head ... asking ... why would anyone in general (and you, in specific) want to be an admin? Oh, yes, I can see some benefit and enjoyment, perhaps. But, I am the type who would rather stay off to the side and out of the fray ... and just edit the articles of interest to me ... and steer clear of all the bureaucracy and politics. I have enough of that (bureaucracy and politics) in my "real" (offline) life. I certainly don't need/want any more here in my "escape" (virtual) life. I am sorry to see that the RfA did not conclude as you had hoped. But, you know the saying ... be careful what you wish for, you just might get it! In other words, everything happens for a reason ... and perhaps, in the end, this outcome is best for you. So, thanks again for the kind words above. And, again, I am glad to see that you are back editing in Wikipedia. Best, (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Thank you for that thoughtful response. You make many valid comments, and for sure I find much contentment editing at the user level. I did desire to be an admin for many ways I could perhaps have been good at it. It wasn't meant to be, and honestly I think where I may have had problems is that I might have unblocked users like you when I saw an inconsistency such as your example showed. I am very glad to see you editing again and the encyclopedia is better for it. I am better for having had an opportunity to collaborate with you and I look forward to a time again when we can collectively reach our best potential through cooperation. My76Strat (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Catholic Bible[edit]

You left a good question on the Humanities page regarding the official version of the Catholic Bible. The straight answer is there is none. All our Bibles are translations of the original texts that are generally not available to us now. However, there is such a thing as a Catholic Bible that is distinct from other Bibles. The main reason is that we have a number of Books and texts that are not in the "Protestant Bible". The Book of: Tobit, Judith, Esther, The 2 Books of Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, parts of Daniel. These were deleted by Jewish people after Christ rose from the dead, as they had a reference to resurrection, or didn't fit the norm! (Scripture is my main study). (I always affirm in Court as invarably am presented with the King James' Version!). MacOfJesus (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of my friends was in Court during the week and asked for a Catholic Bible, and was told, "we have none", but you can affirm! I always affirm, because of Matthew 5: 33-37. Was challenged twice and gave an account of my faith! MacOfJesus (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This discussion was very much aired at the launch of The Jerusalem Bible (1966). "The Bible must remain free", was a phrase used. So, in the Divine Office (Prayer of The Church), you find all the English translations used throughout. Our modern languages change with time. Example: "spirit" was usually had the translation "ghost" in older translations. The King James' version was translated into a Shakesperian Standard English, that remains a point of reference today! MacOfJesus (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was my words helpful on the Bible? MacOfJesus (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, thanks. I am still planning to get back to you on the Bible issue. That is on my "to do" list, and I shall be in touch shortly. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Table of contents[edit]

The question is about the article Deaths in 2011 specifically; it is also a general question for any article, however. I posted my question on Talk: Deaths in 2011, but I have received no replies there as of yet. So, I am posting here also. Is there any way to make the Table of Contents (TOC) read horizontally (left-to-right) as opposed to its present vertical (up-and-down) style? I think it would look much better. You can see the TOC of this article (List of Iranian actresses) for an example of what I mean. I looked at some templates, but they only seemed to apply to TOCs that are of the "A through Z" format. But, perhaps I am mistaken about that. Any insights on this issue? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Again the one to ask is user:OlEnglish on his talk page. MacOfJesus (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What do you think of my change to the vertical TOC? Feel free to undo it, of course. You could try ((TOCCalMonths)) too. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, but ... no, sorry. That defeats the whole point. The page is essentially a calendar of the current month ... so people will want to find a specific date within the month. I'd like to see the TOC headings for the 30 days (i.e., the numbers 1 to 30) scroll left-to-right (horizontally) at the top of the page ... as opposed to the current up-and-down (vertically) at the right of the page, if possible. Is that do-able? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC))Reply[reply]
I couldn't find a substitutable template so I produced the markup on the article as <noinclude></noinclude> text. It is a form of the ((Compact TOC)) template. Cheers My76Strat (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks neat, but it needs more work. If you click on "April" you get to April, then, if you click on "5" you jump back to May 5 - at least in Firefox. This is doable by adding an extra anchor to each day's sub-heading, but it could be a nightmare to maintain-- John of Reading (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As You Like It[edit]

I have raised this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shakespeare#Dramatis personæ for "Characters". --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I have replied at this link above ... as well as at the article Talk Page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Hi[edit]

Hi, as I see that you agreeing with me about the content on the Caylee Anthony homicide article. Perhaps you could change back the reverted material. I was wondering also if you could check out Niteshift36 and the IP that discussed there to behaviour. I find them to be both offensive at the moment, especially Niteshift36. Thanks--BabbaQ (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's going on here? Inducting other editors to change back material so you aren't involved yourself (3rr?) is generally seen as trying to game the system. --87.194.194.250 (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If a third party agrees with the first party. And the first party simply suggests that the material should be re-added there is no problem. Im not demanding anything and after all I think Joseph Spadaro can make his/hers own mind up perfectly. Its not my problem if Spadaro happens to agree with me for example. If anything you 87.194.194.250 are trying to avoid the (3rr?) by asking Niteshift36 to do your work.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help me[edit]

((adminhelp))

The following page was put up for speedy deletion: Anthony Weiner photo scandal. That page also had a Talk Page (Talk:Anthony Weiner photo scandal), on which editors could object to or support the speedy deletion. When I last read that Talk Page a few moments ago, there were about a dozen people who opposed the speedy deletion ... and perhaps only one person who did not oppose it. Then, an editor named User:Jonny-mt deleted the article. And now, that Talk Page -- and all of its discussion -- is nowhere to be found. Where can I find that Talk Page that was deleted? And, how can he (User:Jonny-mt) delete the page when the opponents to deletion outnumbered the supporters by 12 to 1? What would be the point of having the discussion then, if User:Jonny-mt can ignore and unilaterally override it? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Hi there. Please see the discussion on my talk page. --jonny-mt 08:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help me[edit]

I'd like an administrator to intervene. A user named Abrazame is constantly reverting my edits on the article of Anthony Weiner sexting scandal. Also, a user named Off2riorob is harassing me — and not Abrazame — by "threatening" me by posting a 3RR revert warning on my Talk Page (immediately above). Furthermore, Off2riorob is deliberately interfering with my "Admin Help" request ... by making unwanted, unwarranted, and unwelcome edits on my Talk Page. I added information into the Anthony Weiner sexting scandal article. Consensus on the Talk Page of that article approved such. And Abrazame keeps stating his own personal opinion that "this is not part of the scandal". All of the information that I added was true, factual, relevant, NPOV, and fully (reliably) sourced. Please advise. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC))Reply[reply]

As a friendly note, WP:3RR says that reversing another editor's edit, whether in whole or in part, counts as a revert. That information was added or removed does not matter, if it undoes the action that another editor performed. - SudoGhost™ 23:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have removed the admin help request; you have been helped both on ANI and on the article talk page. Please don't try to carry the same discussion in 3 locations. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Friendly reminder[edit]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Anthony_Weiner_sexting_scandal#Weiner_checks_into_treatment. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. - SudoGhost™ 03:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've been warned about this sort of conduct before, and still pretty much everything you've said at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Help me and your most recent comments at Talk:Anthony Weiner sexting scandal leave something to be desired in terms of civility. If you are not able to respond in a civil and measured manner to things that others say to you here on Wikipedia, I suggest that you take a few days off to cool down. Continuing to be uncivil and sarcastic in all of your responses, instead, will end with you blocked. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Joseph, I am writing here instead of creating a new Weinergate section. I have some concerns about this edit [1] to the talk page. When you wrote:
Why does he 'deserve the benefit of the doubt?' if anything that violates NPOV...
I strongly disagree. Giving the benefit of the doubt is having a neutral point of view. Though Wikipedia is not a court of law, it is not unlike the presumption of innocence, or being an impartial juror. Furthermore, it is given high importance that living persons not be libeled or defamed. The standard for biographical articles is greater than that of place or things. This is why I and others are arguing against the inclusion of certain things. It isn't that we're trying to soft-pedal the congressman, we are trying to follow the idea that having a citation of something does not make a good enough reason for there to be a link in the article. There's a tendency with current events to include every little detail. One way to think about this is to apply the ten year test on it. This isn't an official policy, it is just a guideline to think about looking back from ten years in the future. What is going to be important about the article that people will want to know?
The other thing I wanted to say is I was concerned about your statement that Weiner is a "proven self-serving liar" is defamatory. Even if he admits to lying about his online sex talk (which he has) this does not make him a unqualified liar. This is potentially libelous, and should be stricken. Talk pages are not exempt from BLP, and I'm bringing this to you instead of removing it myself as a courtesy.
Regards, Liberal Classic (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AN/I[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - SudoGhost™ 11:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Weiner sexting scandal[edit]

Question: When does this AfD close? I thought that it was a seven-day process. Am I mistaken? Please advise. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC))Reply[reply]

I won't remove your template as you might want specifically to talk to an admin. - but it is seven days. That AFD is more or less ready to close and it will get closed soon enough now. Closure is not like, seven days is exactly up now please close, often they are closed a few hours early or a few hours late, if is is a close cut call or not well frequented it can be left open for another seven days - this is clearly not the case in this AFD, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As Off2riorob said, AFDs are not closed immediately after seven days but whenever admins are able to do it. The more complicated an AFD is, the longer it might take. No reason to worry though. In this case, I closed it now but generally you should only start worrying about such things if several days have passed without closing or relisting (since the old open AFDs will be listed at the next day for all admins to see). Regards SoWhy 20:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have a question[edit]

Thanks for all your help on the Deaths in 2012 page. :) But how did you get such a beautiful user page? I'm assuming that all those coloured boxes are widgets of some kind, but I don't know. Guyovski (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! You are certainly welcome (for the help that I offered on the Deaths page). That's certainly no problem. Thanks, also, for your compliments on my User Page. Those colored informational boxes are called "userboxes". You can read all about them here: Wikipedia:Userboxes. If you scroll down to the bottom of that page (to this section, here: Wikipedia:Userboxes#Gallery), you will see that there are hundreds – if not thousands – of different Wikipedia userboxes. You can add any of them to your own User Page. Just click on any of those links in that Gallery, depending on which category of userbox you are interested in. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dispute resolution requested[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "I don't want to be forced to keep responding". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.2.203 (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a follow-up, I have gone to this webpage [2] and filled out an incident report stating: "Joseph A. Spadaro appears to assert that Holocaust denial is a legitimate form of philosophy," providing location details of the relevant talk page discussion and my contact information. This is absolutely not intended to escalate our dispute on Wikipedia, and all follow-up on this issue should be directed to that website. I am adding this talk page entry purely for informational purposes. Guyovski (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's currently a discussion about the above post at WP:AN#Offwiki report to ADL? which you may want to participate in. Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion[edit]

Hello, Joseph A. Spadaro. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

AN Notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding a recent Anti-Defamation League Report. The thread is "Offwiki report to ADL?". Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me just say how sorry I am that this happened. The ADL is obviously unlikely to do anything with the report, but I suggest that you ask them to remove it from their records, as you use your real name to edit. The report itself constitutes defamation. ʝunglejill 13:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, I just perused the discussions about this. You really got the raw end of the deal and were dragged into something that was absolutely no fault of your own. I'm glad that you're still on WP and that after enduring that ordeal, you continue to make edits and speak your mind. Nicely done Sir... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert Mone[edit]

There is no "standard" header. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. The original header should be kept. Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I did read the section to which you directed me. Thanks. However, I do not agree with you. That section of the MOS says that the term "footnotes" is used when we have explanatory footnotes only. It goes on to say that the term "References" is used when we have citation footnotes. In the Robert Mone article, those are not explanatory footnotes, they are citation footnotes. So, please clarify for me what your point is and what the issue here is. To my understanding, an explanatory footnote is something like this example. "President Carter spent his childhood in California. (footnote 8)." And, below, footnote 8 says: "Carter, however, was actually born in Montana". That is a footnote that carries an explanatory text only, not a citation. In that type of case, the terminology "footnotes" is an appropriate header for the section. In the Mone article, however, the footnotes clearly contain citations to articles and such. So, please let me know your argument, your issue, and why you think the header should be "footnotes" instead of (the more traditional) "references". Thanks. Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks for the note, also. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See, also, a discussion that I raised about this issue at Wikipedia:Help desk#Proper header. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have answered there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Divine Comedy[edit]

I see that you were (are) active on the article and Talk Page for Dante's Divine Comedy. Are you familiar with the poem? May I ask you a question about it? Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I'm familiar with the poem, though I'm hardly a Dante expert. If you have a question, you can ask it here (I'll watchlist this page), and I'll do my best to answer it or direct you to a relevant resource. Deor (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello. Thanks! I am just starting to read this poem. I know (basically) nothing about it, as of yet. The only thing that I do know is that the poem chronicles Dante's journeys through hell, purgatory, and heaven. Now, as I sat down to begin reading it, I wondered to myself, why the poem is entitled "comedy". I found that odd. So, I went to the Wikipedia article to seek an answer. I did not see any mention on this point at all. So, do you have any idea as to why Dante called his poem a "comedy"? I can't imagine that this journey through hell, etc., is "funny" in the comedic sense. The only thing that I can come up with, off the top of my head, is that the word "comedy" is used as it is used in Shakespeare (not so much meaning "funny" or "comedic", but simply meaning a happy ending as opposed to a tragedy). And, I am assuming, the "happy ending" is that his journey ends in heaven, since he exited hell. But, I have no idea. And, again, the title puzzled me. Any thoughts? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're correct that it was called Commedia (at least partly) because of its "happy ending" in heaven. This is addressed in the third paragraph of Divine Comedy#Thematic concerns, and I quoted Dante's remarks on the matter in this reference-desk thread a few years ago. Deor (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. That was very helpful. I certainly would never have found that Reference Desk thread, without you directing me to it. And, as far as that section in the actual article: I very intentionally only "skimmed" the article, very briefly, as I did not want any "spoilers" before I read the poem. In my very quick scan, I missed the section to which you referred. Thanks so much! Let me ask you another question, if I may. Would you suggest that one read the entire poem, beginning to end? Or is it OK to just read the Hell section, put it down, later read the Purgatory section, put it down, and later read the Heaven section? I understand that is likely a personal preference. But, which approach is best, do you think (to get the full impact and meaning of the poem)? It seems awfully big (daunting) to read from end to end. On the other hand, I don't want to "lose" anything by parceling out the reading in three distinct sections, over a long period of time, with my reading of other (distracting) material intervening. Thoughts? Suggestions? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm, that's a difficult question. When I've read it for pleasure—as opposed to just investigating some specific point—I never been able to resist reading the whole thing straight through. It helps that my favorite of the three cantiche is the Paradiso, so I'm always looking forward to it. I don't, however, see any particular problem with reading the cantiche separately over a period of time; though it is, I think, important to read them in order.
As a sort of introduction to whet one's appetite for the poem, I can't recommend highly enough an essay by Dorothy Sayers, called "... And Telling You a Story". It was originally published in Essays Presented to Charles Williams, ed. C. S. Lewis, in 1947, but I'm sure it has been reprinted elsewhere since. If you can find a copy, I encourage you to read it. I don't know what translation you're using or how well it's annotated, but you'll probably want a guide to the many unfamiliar names you'll come across in the Comedy. Wikipedia's List of cultural references in Divine Comedy is a serviceable compendium of brief explanations. The most copious and detailed notes I know of in English are those in Charles Singleton's edition (three volumes of Italian text and translation and three volumes of notes), but they may be rather daunting for a first-time reader. I'd advise you to just dig in and start reading; you may find yourself unable to stop, or you may find that you need a rest after the rigors of Hell. I don't see that it matters much. Deor (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the valuable input. Yes, I certainly do plan to read them in order. I guess it's just a question of whether I will read all three continuously or with breaks in between. The edition that I purchased is this one: Dante's Divine Comedy: Hell, Purgatory, Paradise. It is translated by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow and illustrated by Gustave Doré. It's a beautiful book, and the price was very reasonable ($14 or so). I will also try to find that essay you mention (by Dorothy Sayers), before I actually start reading Dante's poem. As a side note, I started reading another book in the interim, William Faulkner's As I Lay Dying. Are you familiar with that one? And can you offer any insights? Thanks so much! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, can't help you with that one; I haven't read it. Deor (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem. Thanks for all the other suggestions and advice! Much appreciated. I will follow your suggestions. I am looking forward to reading this! Thanks again! Best, Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I Lay Dying[edit]

Hello. I do not really appreciate your comments at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#As I Lay Dying, implying that I am a child seeking help with homework. Some questions at the Help Desks are, indeed, bona fide. If you are "at" the Help Desk, I assume that you are there to "help" or to offer some insights into the bona fide questions of other editors ... and not to belittle the questions of others as if they were trivial, childish, and nothing more than a veiled adolescent disguise at cheating on homework. What exactly about my question leads you to your assumption that I am a child attempting to cheat on a homework assignment, as distinguished from a bona fide question, seeking information (i.e., indeed the very purpose of the Help Desk)? And, furthermore, even if that is your personal suspicion, why act on it in such a condescending and mocking (and very public) manner? Please advise. Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

StuRat, I am particularly surprised/dismayed/disappointed/hurt by your behavior. I have seen you on these Help Desks quite a bit. And, in fact, I am sure that you have helped me over the past many years, several times. This seems out of character for you. And, as such, it is particularly disappointing and hurtful. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

Apologies if my response seemed inappropriate, but I expect that you’ll agree the question does resemble a homework assignment.DOR (HK) (talk) 05:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion at User Talk:StuRat#As I Lay Dying[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at User Talk:StuRat#As I Lay Dying. Senra (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Murder of Travis Alexander[edit]

Maybe you'd be interested in commenting in a discussion I started on the talk page about the tags an editor added?[3] Halo Jerk1 (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you take a look at a new talk page discussion on Murder of Travis Alexander concerning changing the article name to Death of... I have tried to reason and explain to the IP about the previous discussion held to deaf ears unfortunatly.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting. I thought Joseph was a random person who shared your opinion and thus I was prepared to settle; but it seems you sneakily went and recruited him knowing he was on your side. Very sly and pathetic. I also believe it is against the wiki rules to seek help in edit discussions from users you already know share your opinion... 87.232.1.48 (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would be very careful to not throw accusations around like you are doing right now. It almost seems like you are "out to win the discussion at any cost" which is not productive. Me contacting Joseph was because he had been involved along with me in the original consensus discussion concerning the name of Murder of Travis Alexander, which you for some reason totally ignored when I tried to tell you about. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also interesting to note that the user Ip is currently active at three IP numbers 87.232.1.48 , 134.226.254.178 and 87.232.101.49.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article name

Hi again, now some user has gone and changed the article name from Murder of Travis Alexander to Homicide of Travis Alexander without discussing it and ignoring consensus. This has gone way to far in my opinion, in my opinion this is a Murder and nothing else changing the article name like that is misleading. Hope you see and understand my points. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was bold and moved the article name back to Murder of.... I have also started a new "what should the article name be" discussion at the talk page. For me a waste of time but as a few users seems to disagree with a passion I thought a new discussion was the best way to settle this.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excel question: horizontal line[edit]

In Excel (2010), is there any way to get a solid horizontal line directly in the middle of a cell, going from left to right (in other words, cutting the cell in half horizontally)? I don't want to use a series of dashes or minus signs or equal signs, because they have a little blank space between each character (leaving little gaps). Rather, I want a solid, unbroken horizontal line (with no gaps). I looked in the "borders" format function, under "more borders". And there is indeed exactly the type of border that I am looking for. However, that specific border format is "grayed out", so that I am not able to click on it. Why is it even there, if it cannot be clicked on or selected? Or am I doing something wrong, and I should indeed be able to click on it? Any ideas? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You could use a macro to draw the lines. The following VBA code draws a horizontal line in the middle of every cell in the current selection:
Sub DrawLines()
    Dim c As Range
    For Each c In Selection
        ActiveSheet.Shapes.AddLine c.Left, c.Top + c.Height / 2, c.Left + c.Width, c.Top + c.Height / 2
    Next
End Sub
AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I will try that macro and see how that works. But, I have no idea of what a macro really is. So, where exactly do I type all of that above code? Where in the Excel spreadsheet do I type all of that? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You need to copy it into the Visual Basic Editor, which you can get to by pressing Alt+F11. Here are some links that should get you started: [4], [5], [6]. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the info and for those links. I will try that. Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the macro is definitely the most elegant solution, and it works perfectly (I've just tried it). Dbfirs 17:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To AndrewWTaylor: Thank you very much for providing me with this macro, and with the links that explain how to create a macro. I really do appreciate it. Thanks again! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why don't you do it the easy way, with the draw tool that there is every version of Excel? You can download my example here. By the way the border you saw, which you could not click, was not a line in the middle; it is rather a grid line that can be made visible when you select more cells at once. It was gray because you had not selected more than one cell on top of each other (vertical selection).--Gciriani (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. Thanks. The above conversation is actually an excerpt from this Reference Page Help Desk question: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing#Excel question: horizontal line. If you go to that link, you'll see more of the conversation. In any event, I had mentioned (at that page) why the "draw" function really doesn't work very well (for me). Also, another editor explained why my border line selections were "grayed out". (Which I now understand, but did not when I posed my original question.) Thanks so much for your reply here on my Talk Page. I actually looked at (downloaded?) your example of a horizontal line. But, once I looked at it, I was not sure what to do with it (i.e., how to place that into my own Excel spreadsheet) ... ? Do you know how to do so? Thanks again! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can draw lines with the draw menu. To activate the menu, please go to View / Toolbars and check mark Drawing. At least this is the menu path in Excel 2003. Once the menu is active you have a bunch of drawing tools available: for my example, I selected the line tool, and then on the spreadsheet itself I clicked on one side and dragged it across the cells of interest. It can be adjusted at any time for position of both ends, thickness and color. I hope this helps.--Gciriani (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Yes, I know how to "draw" a line in Excel. But, it is not a great solution to my problem. This is what I had replied at that Reference Desk Page, when another editor suggested using the "draw" function. I replied: "Yes, the drawing menu is still there. I did try it. It's not an ideal solution, however. It's hard to draw a "nice, clean, straight" line. This is because it is hard to "start" and "stop" the line at the exact spot you want; it is hard to draw the line perfectly horizontal (as it tends to slightly slant up or down); and it is hard to get the line in the exact center of the cell. In other words, the line will only be as precise as your hand drawing will allow. Plus, you have to draw a line in every single cell, one by one." Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Joseph, thanks for your note on my talk page about this. You're welcome - glad I was able to help. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks again! Much appreciated! I will be using your macro; it does exactly what I want/need. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need your help[edit]

Someone has decided to nominate List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners for deletion. Since you have helped for many years in the upkeep of the article, I invite you to take part in the discussion, which can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners. TheLastAmigo (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have added my input at that Nomination for Deletion page. The nomination is ridiculous, and I will be very upset if this article is deleted. Thanks again. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I read your response and I really appreciate it. I will also be very upset if it is deleted. I've been maintaining the article since 2007, and the guy who nominated it for deletion has only been a Wikipedia editor since February of this year. I'm flabbergasted by this nomination. It does seem that most editors so far are in favor of keeping it, however. TheLastAmigo (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I agree with all that you state in your above post. I will make some other editors aware of this deletion nomination, and I will ask for their input at that page. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about Academy Awards[edit]

To – TheLastAmigo (talk): Hi. I have a question for you. I am assuming that the answer is "yes" ... but, rather than assume, I'd rather ask. Are you interested in the general topic of Academy Awards and in the specific topic of Academy Awards records? Please let me know. I expect that your answer is "yes", but – again – I'd rather check with you and ask, as opposed to just assume. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, I am interested in film in general, but the Oscars are one of my favorite film subjects. I also find Oscar records fascinating. TheLastAmigo (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, thanks. Yes, I thought that your answer would be along those lines. And here is the reason that I ask. I recently purchased a book, called 85 Years of the Oscar: The Official History of the Academy Awards. Now, a few years back, I had also purchased the previous edition of that book (which was called 75 Years of the Oscar: The Official History of the Academy Awards). Now that I have the new book, I want to get rid of the old book. Of course, I'd hate to throw it away. So, I was wondering if you might want it? The book is in perfect / pristine condition. I don't think that I ever even cracked the spine of the book. (This is not because I wasn't interested in the book, but more so because I have been far too busy and never had any free time to read it.) The book contains 400+ pages of pictures, facts, statistics, records, etc., etc., etc., about the Oscars. If you look at this link, you will see the specific details of the book from the Amazon website: 75 Years of the Oscar: The Official History of the Academy Awards. So, rather than my throwing this book away, I was wondering if you'd like to have it? I'd give it to you for free (because I would hate to throw the book out), but I would only charge you for the postage. Let me know if you have any interest. It's a beautiful book, in perfect condition. It's never been touched, never been read, never even been opened (except perhaps once). It's in "brand new" condition. Normally, I would hold onto it myself, but the free space on my huge bookshelf is ever diminishing. So, I won't hold onto this, since I have the newer edition. Please let me know. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh wow, that is very generous of you. I would definitely be interested in that. Do you have a Facebook account? If so, you should add me and we can discuss the details. Here is the link to my account. https://www.facebook.com/wes.huizar
Also, since you are interested in the Academy Awards, have you ever read the book Inside Oscar: The Unofficial History of the Academy Awards? It was co-written by one of my good friends and mentors, Damien Bona, who sadly passed away in January 2012. It may be the best book on the subject that I have ever read. TheLastAmigo (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, thanks. No, I don't use Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and all that social media stuff. I am a bit older and have no interest in that "younger generation" stuff. I barely use my cell phone. I have a few books on the Oscars, but I am not sure if the one that you mention is among them. I am actually going through the process of cleaning up my boxes of books, bookshelves, etc. That is how I came upon the book I mentioned above. So, if I do have the book your friend wrote, it is buried among all my others, and it is not at my disposal until I get to those boxes. Sorry to hear about your friend, though. I read his bio here in Wikipedia. That's a shame that he died so young. Perhaps the easiest way to move forward is to email me. My email is the same name that I have here (Joseph A Spadaro) ... plus the "AT" and plus the "aol.com". (There is no period after my middle initial "A" in my email address.) Contact me there and we can go forward. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template for Academy Award lists[edit]

To User talk:TonyTheTiger – Hi. Did you create the template for Academy Award lists? I think that I noticed a few items (links) missing; I think that they should be added into the template. But, I don't know how to do so. Hence, I am contacting you. I am referring to this template below.

Please let me know how I can handle this. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, please list the items you think should be added and ping me.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I only have a quick minute, right now. So, off the top of my head ... List of Academy Awards ceremonies ... and ... List of presenters of Best Picture Academy Award. I don't think that they are in there? Please let me know what you decide to do. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The presenters is in there.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks. Looks like you added the other one. Thank you. However, I just noticed several more missing:

Will you add these, also? Please let me know. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two of these were already included. Added List of Best Director winners by age, List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Foreign Language Film and List of countries by number of Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film. Did not add List of submissions to the 86th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film because submissions are part of another templating system.
Hi. Thanks. On a related note, I'd like to offer this. I think that the idea of this template is great (thanks for getting it started). However, I think that it needs some improvement in organization, wording, etc. Generally speaking, the wording seems to be too compact and too abbreviated, and it doesn't really offer a good indication as to what the list is really all about (in several instances). Do you have any thoughts on this? Is there any way to revise the template so that the full name of the article appears; or would that be too unwieldy? Perhaps there is some middle ground? Thoughts? Also, some items are listed in alphabetical order, some are not. Also, the organization/break-down of categories on the left-hand side might be tweaked. Any thoughts on this? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why don't you post comments on this subject at WP:FILM where a broader set of eyes can consider this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's a good idea. I will do so. Also, just so you know ... I am probably going to create an article (perhaps, two) entitled List of Academy Award-related lists ... and List of Academy Award-related articles. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mention those ideas at WP:FILM and see what kind of feedback you get.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, will do. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Record temperature variations[edit]

In reply to your question here, see the sections "Other high-temperature records" and "Other low-temperature records" on List of weather records. That's the go-to page for this question. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A-ha. I will have to take a look at that. I did not know that that existed, and it was not mentioned when I asked my question at that Help Desk / Reference Desk page a week or two ago. Thanks so much for following up with that question. I appreciate the new info. I will check that out. Thanks again. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Glad that you find my reply helpful, even though it comes late! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, very helpful indeed. Thank you. Thanks, also, for following up on the "old" question on that Reference Desk. I appreciate it! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of films with all four Academy Award acting nominations[edit]

A year ago you suggested changing the title to this page. I have just replied with a suggestion on the article's talk page. If you think it looks good, I would suggest you go ahead and make the change. 99.192.81.220 (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I will check it out. Thanks for the notice. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suzanne Basso[edit]

Do you think it should be renamed "Murder of Buddy Musso"? There were multiple perpetrators, not just Basso. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmmmmm. Interesting. I had never thought of that. Here is my initial off-the-cuff reaction. Two thoughts. Point One: I think that the person (Suzanne Basso) is "more" notable than the crime itself (murder of Musso). This whole incident made big news (at least, on the national level) essentially because Basso is one of the very rare female death row inmates who gets executed. If it was not for that fact, I don't think that the crime itself would have garnered that much news. As gruesome as it was, it would have been an "ordinary, run-of-the-mill" murder story, which would not necessarily gain national coverage (except for the fact that Basso was the female killer). You mentioned the fact that there were multiple perpetrators. The others have been made rather insignificant (in comparison to Basso); in fact, I almost forgot that there were indeed other accomplices. If I remember correctly, Basso was the ring-leader, however. You will notice, though, that the other participants have not gained any notability, or any national coverage, for their roles. In fact, you would be hard-pressed to find anyone even knowing/remembering their names. Those others are just footnotes in the whole incident, really. Basso is really the name that sticks out; hence, it is Basso – not the murder – that was the notable aspect of this story. Point Two: I just re-read the entire article as it now stands. It is clearly written about Basso, and not really the murder per se. Again, much of the focus is on her being the rare female death row inmate who (eventually) gets executed. The article, as it is now, is not so much about the crime. If we renamed the article to "Murder of Musso", it would have to be largely rewritten. We would have to add a great deal, about the victim and the murder. And we would have to pare down all the details about the perpetrator (Basso). So, all in all, I think the better approach is to keep "murder of Musso" as a sub-section within the Basso article. (In other words, keep it as it is.) However, I do think that the murder sub-section should be enhanced with more info and more details. Those are my thoughts on this matter. What are your thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am aware the incident got national attention before Basso's execution (the Crime Library article was written long before the Basso execution) but from looking at it, it half-focuses on Basso (and to a lesser extent her son) and half on Musso. So it's not like Stephanie Kuhen where not any one of the particular perpetrators stands out. Maybe I can check for sources and see how much focus they put on Suzanne Basso and check whether they are national or local. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I am from Connecticut; very far removed from Texas. So, I only state what I myself saw from the perspective of national coverage. I certainly imagine that local coverage played out differently. I did not (yet) read the Crime Library article. But your mention of them (the website) gave me this thought. The article may have been written long before the actual execution. However, it was probably indeed initially written due to the fact that Basso was a female killer accused of capital murder and would soon be sitting on death row and would potentially be getting executed (even though it hadn't happened yet). Even though the article was written before the actual execution, it may have garnered their (Crime Library's) interest due to that aspect (the potential, as-of-yet not carried-out rare female execution) of the murder. I am not sure. And, indeed, it may have been that aspect of the crime (rather than the crime itself) that garnered other media interest aside from Crime Library's. In other words, if that is indeed what happened with Crime Library, it may also have been the case with other coverage of the murder. I just don't know. All in all, I think – at the end of the day – Basso is the central figure here. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Crime Library put it under the "Women Who Kill" so perhaps it is partly that Basso is a woman. I'll check and see what other media sources say. You are welcome :) WhisperToMe (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I really do believe that that is the key here. To be honest, if the killer were not a female, I think this crime would have flown completely under the radar, except perhaps at the local level. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photo requests[edit]

Do you do photo requests? I would like to know if you are close to Milford or Greenwich: Commons:Commons:Picture_requests/Requests/United_States#Connecticut. If not, I can check for things in the state which may be good to photograph.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I have no idea what a photo request is (although, I think I can guess what it means). I am not close to either area. And, I actually never take photos. I have no "regular" camera; and I don't even know how to use my cell phone camera. Sorry! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, ok. Just to clarify, a photo request is where someone wants a photo of a subject on Wikipedia, so a Wikipedians takes a photo himself or herself and uploads the picture to the Wikimedia Commons so the photo can be used on Wikipedia. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, exactly what I figured it would be. Taking photo's is definitely not my thing; in fact, it's almost an aversion. Sorry! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's ok. I'll see if there are others from the same state :) WhisperToMe (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:RDL on alphabetisation[edit]

Saw your thread at WP:RDL and thought a response here might be more helpful. WP:NRHP maintains lists of historic sites in the USA, many of which are named for individuals (e.g. John Doe House), and many of which aren't (e.g. First National Bank), so this kind of thing is highly relevant for us. We've generally alphabetised personal names as we would their namesakes, so the John Smith House is placed just after the Second National Bank and far away from the John Doe House. See any of the sub-lists of National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut for examples. Nyttend (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the reply here. I did look at that link, and it did indeed confirm what you stated above. Now, is this a matter of Wikipedia policy? Or just something that the Wiki Project came to consensus on? Also, so I am clear: if you had a John Smith High School, that would be alphabetized as if it were "Smith, John High School"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've never seen any kind of policy on this issue; this is just how our project has handled it. And yes, we'd put JSHS in the "Sm" section. See National Register of Historic Places listings in Sullivan County, Tennessee, where the "George Washington School" appears after the "US Post Office-Shelby Street Station" and before the "Wills-Dickey Stone House". Exceptions happen, but they're accidental: our lists were generated by a computer program, and we cleaned them up, but we occasionally missed entries. For example, until just a moment ago, National Register of Historic Places listings in Scioto County, Ohio had the "General U.S. Grant Bridge" placed before the "George H. Gharky House", seemingly because the list-generator person accidentally retained the computer's sort of this bridge as "General" instead of as "Grant". Nyttend (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great. Thanks! A side-note; or, rather, a side-question. A computer program is able to discern whether a string of words represents a person's name, as opposed to just a bunch of regular words strung together? Really? How do they manage to do that? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not exactly that. Everything came from the National Park Service's database, in which names are inconsistently alphabetised; for example, Philadelphia's Benjamin Franklin Hotel appears as "Benjamin Franklin Hotel" and gets sorted between "Belmont School " and "Bergdoll Mansion", while the Sullivan County school appears as "Washington, George, School". It's an artifact of the database-creation process: each place is added to the database when it's added to the Register, rather than lots being added in one big clump, so the same name format may be treated in different ways. WP:NRHP member User:Elkman (a professional computer programmer, if I remember rightly) downloaded the NPS database and made it queryable, and he got it to turn around some names, but not all. Go to http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/countylist.php and pick Sullivan County, TN — you'll see that the "Alison, Finlay, House" is rendered as "Finlay Alison House", but the "Hall, Alexander Doak, Farm" doesn't get turned around, and we have the "Washington, George, School" near the end. We've done our best, but as you can imagine, problems still happen. Sometimes this occurs when we misunderstand a name: one time I sorted the Somebody Someone Lustron House as if it had been "Lustron, Somebody Someone, House" (it should have been "Someone, Somebody, Lustron House") because I'd never heard of Lustron houses. We've also had to be careful with churches, since St. Somebody's Church should go at the start of the "S" section instead of near the end. Nyttend (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, my! What a mess! I am glad that I don't have those issues to contend with! Thanks for all your help! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome. Could be worse; we've been doing it collaboratively for the last several years, and most of these examples came from searching the database, not from my memory. For a while, we were recording errors at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRIS information issues for correspondence with NPS, but eventually we discovered that they have more important things to do than fixing typos and alphabetical-sort errors. Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A-ha! Good luck with the project. Thanks for all your help. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help[edit]

I would like to request help from an admin. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]



What help do you need? –xenotalk 16:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. Thanks. I posted a question on the Humanities Reference Desk. See here: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Current events: Trial of Oscar Pistorius. Another editor (μηδείς) has repeatedly hidden my question, claiming that it is "speculation" and therefore a violation of policy. You can read the dialogue at that page. The post had been hidden; unhidden; hidden; unhidden several times (by other editors, not myself). Just now, I went in again, saw that it was hidden, and I made it unhidden. Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a WP:BLP issue which was reported to the WP:BLPN. You should take the advice of the administrator there. μηδείς (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, not for nothing ... but, how was I supposed to even know that that thread even existed? Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please note that I don't have the time or energy to help with this query. Another administrator should feel free to fulfill the help request, or if this issue is no longer live, please disable the template. –xenotalk 01:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have read what you say, and understand your concerns. Looking to see what help you are actually requesting, the only things that I can see here that actually ask for anything are "Please advise" and "how was I supposed to even know that that thread even existed? Please advise", so I shall try to address those.
  1. On the question of how you were supposed to know that the thread existed, the editor who started the section should have informed you, and I shall drop him/her a note saying so.
  2. You were not making any "speculation", but simply asking for a fact. There was nothing whatever wrong with doing so, and Medeis's criticism was totally unfounded. That has now been explained repeatedly, and if Medeis still doesn't understand, then I don't see anything more that can be done about that.
  3. Since you ask for advice, I will give you my advice. Naturally, it is up to you whether you choose to follow it or not. In my view, this whole thing got a trivial incident (you asking an innocent question) totally out of proportion. However, the last post to the BLP noticeboard section was two and a half days ago, and the same applies to the reference desk section if we ignore a few possibly tongue-in-cheek comments that don't relate at all either to your question or to the controversy over that question. My advice is to forget the matter, and move on.
  4. Another point, which you did not ask about, but which I noticed in the course of checking the history of this case in order to be able to answer your request, and I thought it might be helpful to mention it. In this edit you posted to the top of a section. To anyone reading the section who does not either search through the editing history or carefully compare the dates in the signatures of each contribution, this makes it look as though you started the section, and what follows was a response to that edit. That can give a completely misleading impression as to the intentions behind posts to the discussion. It is almost never a good idea to post to the top of a section, and on the very rare occasions when there is a justification for doing so, it is best to clearly state that you are doing so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello. Thanks. I certainly do appreciate your input and your help. Thanks again. I have read your four bullet points above. However, point number 4 – which (ironically) you considered to be tangential – is actually the whole problem here. So, I am not quite sure if you understood my questions, concerns, complaints, etc. By reading your bullet point number 4, I am assuming that you did not appreciate the gist of the problem. So, please let me explain. My original post is the one that asked the very benign, simple, innocent question. It is the "second one down", with a date and time stamp of "19:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)". That was the original post I submitted. Now, after that post, the editor μηδείς hid my post, claiming that it was speculation and thus a BLP violation. So, some other editors (not I) continued a back-and-forth of hiding, un-hiding, hiding, un-hiding, etc. And, the claims went back-and-forth that my post was speculation and a BLP violation ... no, it was not ... yes, it was ... no, it was not ... etc. etc. etc. I stayed out of that argument. Finally, my original post remained in the status of being "hidden" (I presume by editor μηδείς). He (or she) kept insisting that my post was speculation, and that my post was a BLP violation. As you can see from all of the relevant discussions, he never addressed the multiple questions of how exactly was the post speculation or in violation of BLP. In any event, μηδείς (or someone) kept my question/post as being "hidden". User μηδείς kept insisting that I needed to add some "proof" (source) of what I was claiming. It was my understanding – as past experiences clearly bore out – that user μηδείς was not going to "let up" until he got his way. In other words, he would continue to "hide" my post, based on his (erroneous?) claim that my post was speculation and a violation of BLP. So, in order to placate him, I added in a source (the affidavit of Oscar Pistorius). My goal in doing so was to placate μηδείς for the present time being, while the "issue" was ironed out as to whether or not my original post was fine or was speculation and violation. In other words, it was a sort of "temporary" solution on my part, in order to keep the thread active and not "hidden". I had assumed that the issue would get resolved one way or another through the ensuing discussions. Now, in order to placate μηδείς (and essentially "get him off my back", for lack of a better phrase), I decided to add in the source, which he was claiming was obligatory on my part. I did not want to add my source in the "middle" of the discussion, assuming that it would get "lost" and be less "visible" and less obvious / less conspicuous. So, therefore, in order to make the addition of the source very crystal-clear – and in order to placate μηδείς and in order to stop μηδείς from constantly "hiding" my post – I put it right at the top of the thread, so that it could not be missed. Quite frankly, I don't think I need to "source" my innocent question, just because μηδείς "feels" that it is speculative and a BLP violation. As stated, I threw it in there as a temporary solution. My intent was – and still is – to delete that source, since I feel it is unnecessary; and since I feel that μηδείς has no "right" to require it of me. Now, of course, I knew that the minute I deleted the source, μηδείς would go right back in and "hide" my post again, as he did several other times prior (until he "got his way", by my adding a source to fulfill his "requirements" to keep my post un-hidden). So, not wanting to get into an argument or discussion about what I considered an unreasonable position, I sought out an administrator for advice. So, this is a long-winded way of telling you two things. One, this is my explanation for why I placed my Oscar Pistorius affidavit edit at the very top of the thread. And, two, the issue is not resolved in any way; the minute that I delete that source, μηδείς will feel obligated to "hide" my thread again and, I assume, will in fact do so. Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, your account of what happened is exactly what I thought. I still think that if you thought there were good reasons for posting at the top, it would have been better to have said "I am posting this at the top of the section because..." but I don't think that's important enough to be worth worrying about.
In your original post, you were clearly asking for information about what Pistorius said: "So, according to his story, did he say ... What reason did he give? Or did he just say ..." All of that is asking for factual information, not "speculation", and to call it a "BLP violation" is absurd. The one part of it which could be taken as asking for speculation was "What prompted that action on his part?" In the context, I took that as being shorthand for "what did he say prompted that action on his part?" but out of context it could be read as asking for Wikipedia editors' speculations. However, even if it is read that way, I still regard calling it a "BLP violation" as unrealistic.
Having said all that, surely the most important point is that the purpose of the reference desk is to see if any other editors can give you the information you ask for. By now, it must surely be abundantly clear that nobody is going to give you that. That being so, I see no purpose whatever in persisting. Why does it matter whether the discussion is hidden or not? Hidden or unhidden, it isn't going to give you the answer to the questions you asked, which should be the only purpose of a thread at the reference desk, and in any case it will be archived soon. Assuming that you don't want to indulge in an infantile competition between you and Medeis to see who can "win", I really, really suggest that the only reasonable thing to do now is to decide "Well, unfortunately I didn't find out what I wanted to know about what Oscar Pistorius said. That's a pity", and move on to other things. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I did, in fact, get an answer to my question. Long ago. (The answer is: He thought that he heard a noise coming from the bathroom area. Hence, he moved from the bedroom area to the bathroom area.) I appreciate your help, but I honestly don't think that you are understanding my point. Which is: once I delete the "source", μηδείς is going to "hide" the discussion yet again. And, then, this cycle will repeat all over again. Rather than the infantile repeating of the same cycle, I had asked for advice as to how to resolve the question. The question being, whether the original post is proper or a BLP violation. You asked: what does it matter, if the discussion is hidden or un-hidden? No offense, but that kind of thinking misses the whole point. If we abide by that philosophy, User μηδείς or any other user can simply – without any justification whatsoever – "hide" any post that they feel like hiding. If that's the case, what's the point at all of having a Reference Desk, in the first place? That philosophy allows – in fact, encourages – one individual editor to be omnipotent in deciding what questions he will or will not allow to be asked. That seems like the very opposite reason for having a Reference Help Desk, no? It's not a matter of winning or losing. But, your reply has me quite confused. On the one hand, you are saying that μηδείς is clearly 100% wrong in his BLP assessment. On the other hand, you are saying: "Well, despite the fact that he is wrong in requiring that the question be hidden, let's keep it hidden anyway. What's the difference if it's hidden or not?" Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying? Maybe I can re-phrase my question. Perhaps, something like this: How can I find out whether or not (i.e., what would the consensus be as to whether or not) my original post is appropriate or a BLP violation? I assume you are trying to help. But, I think that we have different goals and aims here. My goal is to get an answer to that (relevant) question; (i.e., is my conduct a BLP violation?, not the substantive Oscar Pistorius question). Your goal seems to be more of: let's let sleeping dogs lie; there is no point in picking a winner or a loser; let μηδείς have his way and feel like he "won"; and this will allow us all to move on; just let him "win" for the greater good of keeping the peace. Again, or am I misunderstanding your position? I think my question is a very reasonable and valid one. I have been accused of a BLP violation. And I still don't know whether or not I committed one. Sweeping that very significant question under the rug (i.e., by just conceding that the post should be allowed to be hidden) is neither helpful nor serves a purpose nor serves in the best interest of Wikipedia. Again, I think I asked a valid question and posed a valid concern. And I am just trying to get an answer. Hence, I have turned to administrators for assistance in this important Wikipedia matter. BLP is probably one of the more important – if not, the most important – policy on Wikipedia. If an editor is accused of violating BLP, said editor should be able to ascertain whether or not he, in fact, did so. Said editor – or any editor – should be able to ask (and get an answer to) whether or not his conduct rises to a level of a BLP violation. Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Clearly there is some failure to communicate between the two of us. From what you say, you evidently perceive a failure by me to understand what you are saying, while to me it looks like a failure by you to understand what I am saying. Maybe there is a bit of both. I will try to clarify things a little, if I possibly can.

You wrote "The question being, whether the original post is proper or a BLP violation" and in the context it is clear that you think I have not answered that question. I thought, though, that I had already answered the question about the BLP violation. Your original request for help on this page said "Another editor (μηδείς) has repeatedly hidden my question, claiming that it is "speculation" and therefore a violation of policy." I stated in my first post (point number 2) that I thought there was no "speculation", and that "Medeis's criticism was totally unfounded". I did not use the expression "BLP", becasue you had not done so in asking for help, but I thought that my reply was unequicocal: "Medeis's criticism was totally unfounded" meant that I thought that the whole of Medeis's criticism was unfounded, including the accusation of BLP violation. However, following that, you made another post in which you said that you thought that I "did not appreciate the gist of the problem". You proceeded to explain at some length what you thought the situation was, and among other things you repeatedly mentioned the issue of whether what you wrote was a BLP violation. I therefore stated my answer again, this time in more forceful terms, and made a specific point of including the expression "BLP violation" to remove any possibility of doubt: I wrote "All of that is asking for factual information, not "speculation", and to call it a "BLP violation" is absurd." I am therefore somewhat at a loss to understand your latest post, which reads as though you think I have not answered the question about whether you committed a BLP violation. It is possible that in my first answer, where I did not mention "BLP", you did not read my words as meaning that, but I don't understand how my second attempt to give my answer could be seen as anything other than a clear statement that I do not think there was a BLP violation.

In relation top the original question about Oscar Pistorius, I wrote that you had not received the answer you wanted, and were not going to. From what you now say, you regard what you did receive as containing enough of an answer to your question. However, either way, my point really was that you have received as much of an answer to your original question as you are goiong to, and nothing more is going to come, so you may as well move on.

You say "once I delete the "source", μηδείς is going to "hide" the discussion yet again." If for some reason you really care about whether a discussion which has served its purpose and run its course is hidden or not, then at present it isn't hidden, so why not just leave it as it is? That is to say, why do you need to "delete the source"? Does leaving the "source" there do any harm? (Those are rhetorical questions: I don't need or want any answers.)

You say "You asked: what does it matter, if the discussion is hidden or un-hidden? No offense, but that kind of thinking misses the whole point. If we abide by that philosophy, User μηδείς or any other user can simply – without any justification whatsoever – "hide" any post that they feel like hiding." Not so. Not for a moment did I suggest that the same principal applied to "any post that they feel like hiding": only that it applied to this post at this time.

I shall finish by emphasising once more what seems to me to be the central point here. No, you did not do anything that could reasonably be regarded as a BLP violation. Medeis was totally wrong about that, so you can stop worrying about it and move on to more productive things. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for your reply. Yes, we are clearly not communicating very well, here. Nonetheless, I will try once again.
(1) You say that there is no BLP violation; Medeis says that there is. (By the way, some other editors agree with you. And some other editors – including administrators – agree with Medeis.) So, how do we resolve that question/issue/dispute/discrepancy? If a user (like me) is accused of a BLP violation, how does that user know whether or not his actions do in fact amount to a BLP violation? Not for nothing, but just because you say that there is no violation is not dispositive of the issue. By reading your replies, you are seemingly telling me that your opinion trumps the opinion of Medeis (and those who agree with him); and that I should simply be reassured by that fact. So, in other words, why would I accept that your opinion trumps his, in assessing whether or not I have committed a BLP violation, as has been alleged? I assume if I were talking with Medeis, he would say that his opinion trumps yours. So, how can I be reassured that I did (or did not) commit a BLP violation, when there are conflicting opinions? I think that a large part of our miscommunication is that you believe that your opinion is the final opinion and that it is dispositive of my question. However, I would clearly suspect that Medeis (and those who agree with him) would take issue with that. They would not agree with you. So, I am trying to find out who is "right" in their assessment? Medeis (and his like-minded "followers") or you (and yours)? If an editor is accused of a BLP violation, that editor should be able to find out whether or not he did in fact violate BLP. Do you not agree with that? Do you think (or not think) that mine is a reasonable and a valid question?
(2) If I understand your points above, I will paraphrase as follows. You are saying the following (all of the words in italics). There is no BLP violation; Medeis is 100% wrong about that. Because Medeis is wrong about that (i.e., his accusation of a BLP violation), Medeis is also wrong to require that a source be included in order to "allow" the question to remain standing on the Reference Desk. So, am I understanding your position correctly? If not, let me know where my misunderstanding is.
(3) Assuming that I understand you correctly (via my paraphrase in Point #2 above): why are you "conceding" (to Medeis) – for lack of a better word – that I should just keep the source in? (I think this is where you are missing my point, or I am confused about yours.)
(4) I intend to go and remove the source. I feel that there is no BLP violation. Therefore, I feel it is inappropriate for Medeis (or anyone) to "require" me to post a source, in order for him to "allow" my question to remain on the Reference Desk. I anticipate (I said, anticipate ... I did not say that I know for a fact) that, once I delete the source, Medeis will (once again, as has been proven by all relevant past experience here) go in and "hide" my question (i.e., he will disallow my question from being posted). What do I do in this event?
I honestly don't know how I can make more clear my questions. The four points that I made (immediately) above are exactly the same points I made in the prior posts (far higher) above. I have simply reconfigured the wording (I guess?) in order to hopefully articulate better to you what I am saying.
In addition to the four points made above, let me ask two very direct questions. (Which are somewhat repetitive of those above.) But, as they "stand alone", perhaps there is less confusion.
(5) Question: When faced with conflicting opinions, how can I know whether or not my conduct is a BLP violation (as has been alleged)?
(6) Question: Am I required (or not) to include a source in my original post, in order for my question to be "allowed" to be asked on the Reference Desk?
Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Addendum: I am not sure if you saw this post. But, I wanted to bring it to your attention. This user (Guy (Help!)) posted a comment at the BLP Notice Board. I believe that this user is an administrator. As are you. Hence, the source of much of my confusion about my alleged BLP violation. His post at that BLP Notice Board is as follows (the italicized material):
Jack, you need to know two things:
1. This matter is sub judice, commenting on cases oin progress may amount to contempt of court.
2. A statement can be defamatory even if it is true.
This is nto an appropriate discussion for the refdesk. Please just drop it. Guy (Help!) 13:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, I wanted to point out three things: (1) that this comment was posted; (2) that the comment was posted by an administrator; and (3) that the comment was posted on the very thread that discussed my alleged BLP violation. In fact, User Medeis said to me, in the above discussion, (in paraphrase) "If you don't want to take my word for it, I suggest that you heed the advice of the administrator at that BLP Notice Board Discussion" (referring to the Administrator "Guy"). How is it that two administrators can have such diametrically opposite opinions about a topic as important as BLP violations? If you administrators are "confused" (and in conflict), then imagine how the regular editors (e.g., I) must feel ... ? That administrator's comments seem pretty forceful and unequivocal. Pretty final and unwavering. In fact, they are downright threatening. He's not in any way suggesting that this is a gray area, open to interpretation, about which different minds may differ in opinion. It sounds like he (as an administrator) is "laying down the law". No? How is a "regular editor" (like me) supposed to make heads or tails out of two diametrically opposed "expert" (administrator) statements such as yours and his? For what it's worth, I don't see him in any way retracting his statement, so I assume that it still stands as his final word on this matter. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You asked for advice from an administrator, so I gave you my opinion. Obviously I believe that my opinion is right, otherwise I wouldn't hold it, but it is just my opinion, and it doesn't "trump" anyone else's. I think that regarding a request for factual information as a BLP violation is an absurd interpretation, and I can see nothing in the BLP policy that can reasonably be read that way. However, evidently others disagree. Beyond that, you aked for advice, I have given you my advice, and it is entirely up to you whether you take it or not. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Perhaps I misspoke or was not entirely clear. I am not asking an administrator (you, for example) what his individual opinion is. More so, I am asking for advice on: how does one resolve this problem? And, again, given conflicting information, how does one know whether or not he has violated BLP, once he has been accused of doing so? Those are really the pressing questions (more so than "what is the opinion of one individual administrator?"). Your focus is on providing me with your opinion (which I received loud and clear quite some time ago). My focus is on resolving the issue at hand. That is the advice I am seeking when I posted the "administrator help" tag. Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good grief. And you wonder why I neglected to wade into this. In future, you could try posting to WP:AN for additional eyes. –xenotalk 18:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Follow up

Joseph, I've mentioned you here and quoted from the above. I'll just say what you need to know: You have done nothing wrong. You have not breached BLP in any way, shape or form. Those who say otherwise are either mistaken or malicious.
Courage. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've also mentioned you here. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, Jack. Thanks for the notices above. I did review them. I have been "away" from Wikipedia for a day or two, and I am only now getting the chance to reply to you. As far as the Reference Desk / Oscar Pistorius matter: yes, that certainly turned into a fiasco. Personally, I found that the editor (and administrator) who claimed a BLP violation did so without any justification. And I also noticed that they both repeatedly ignored (i.e., did not respond to) reasonable questions asking them to explain or clarify their positions. While all of this was transpiring, I did notice that you were carrying on some parallel conversations (parallel to mine, with other editors), trying to get some answers and/or clarification. As we both know, such answers and clarifications were never put forward, from the parties alleging the BLP violation. So, many thanks for your attempting to get to the bottom of the matter. And many thanks for keeping me posted on the updates and resolution (as it were). I am not sure if you were made aware, but it seems that User μηδείς was eventually blocked for his initiation of this entire debacle. See here: [9]. Actually, I just reviewed the "block notice" on the Talk Page of User μηδείς and – for the first time, just now – I see that there was some further extended conversation about this topic. You participated in that conversation, so you are certainly aware that the block was imposed. In my opinion, that User created a big mess for no reason whatsoever. So, I am glad that this episode is now over. Ughhhhhhh. Once again, thanks! Thanks not only for your support, but also for your persistence and determination in following up on the issue and attempting to get some answers / clarification on the matter. Best, Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Joseph. Well, I was just as curious as you were to get to the bottom of whatever the actual "BLP violation" was, because the allegation made zero sense to me. Like you, I was amazed when neither of the two editors I approached for clarification was forthcoming. In one case, the editor has now explained they were off-site for some days due to pressing RL concerns. No such explanation has been offered by the other, the editor who referred the matter to BLPN in the first place. It is clear to me now that no explanation that had any merit could possibly have been provided, and I take silence to connote assent.
You should know that this matter has become the straw that broke the camel's back of my tolerance of that editor's general behaviour. She and I have agreed to have no further direct communication with each other for the indefinite future. For my part, that means not even referring to her or talking about her if I can help it. I need some considerable space and time completely away from that editor. In 10 years as a regular WP editor, I have had no previous experience of such a circumstance, so I'm making up the rules as I go along and trusting they will work for me. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Yes, I agree with all that you said above (about this alleged BLP violation). Sorry to hear that you have been having so much trouble with that one editor. I hope it all works out. Perhaps,your proposed solution is for the best. Thanks again for your help. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other Oscar winners by age[edit]

Was wondering if it would be possible for someone to do a list for screenwriters as well as cinematographers, was thinking there has to be a list somewhere of this. (I have added tons of new Oscar pages as of late btw) But yeah was thinking about this, as well if there is a list of the longest living post nomination. I could of swore I've seen a list somewhere of that-then again as far as I know it might of been a message board I saw that. (I'm also wondering what studio has the most noms/wins ever, I'm guessing either Paramount or WB) Wgolf (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thanks. (1) I think it would be virtually impossible to do the "age" list with the more obscure categories (e.g., screenwriters, cinematographers, etc.). They are not really "famous" people who are in the public eye (in the same way that actors, actresses, and directors are). So, most people in the general public "don't care" about them at all. If you did have a list, 90% of it would be incomplete or blank ... thereby, defeating the actual purpose of the list. Also, in some of those other categories, there is not only one winner each year (as there is with actors, actresses, directors, etc.). There are often two, three, four people per year who win in some of those other categories. That would be a nightmare to find all those birth dates; in fact, it would probably not even be possible. (2) I have been "out of the loop" recently as far as Oscar articles. What new ones did you create? Can you give me a list? I am always interested in Oscar articles. (3) As far as your comment about "list of the longest living post nomination" ... this is somewhat related. Here are some facts that I ran across, I found them very interesting, and – at some point – I was going to put them into Wikipedia somewhere. But I never got around to it. See this, one of my sandbox pages: User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page39. Look at the two charts under the first sub-section called "Age" (as well as the But See notation right under the second chart). What do you think of that information? Do you think it's worth adding somewhere? And where? Also, I have not looked at those charts in years, so the info might be out of date. Let me know what you think about my three issues above in this post? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks-that is interesting, not sure if they could get there own pages but yeah it is interesting. Adding some winners I realized some I can't even find info if they are alive or not (like the editor of West Side Story, I couldn't even find a date of birth!) Wgolf (talk) 00:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, certainly not their own pages. But, maybe added into "Academy Award records" or something like that? Also, please answer my question in #2 above. I asked: (2) I have been "out of the loop" recently as far as Oscar articles. What new ones did you create? Can you give me a list? I am always interested in Oscar articles. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually some films and names that have not had pages yet-check my articles I've created as I've done a lot the past few days. Wgolf (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, OK. But those are just films and names? Right? No articles that are specific to the Oscars ... like "List of Academy Award blah-blah-blah" ... ? Am I right? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah I wanted to start a list but not sure of what. Though I did mange today get a list of the most noms/wins on the best makeup page (granted that one is easier then other cats ha ha) Well good luck editing and everything. Wgolf (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ha ha. That doesn't even count! LOL! That is a category that is like only 1 or 2 years old ?!??!?!?! LOL. Good luck. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Like the same age as me lol, started in the early 80s lol. I'm surprised nobody has ever done a template for visual effects, but given it's very odd history, I can see why. This list would take forever-but one of the longest living nominees period. Well have fun on here tonight lol. Wgolf (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ooops! I was wrong about that. The category is actually from the 1980's. I think the "Hairstyling" part was only added in, within the past 1 or 2 years. I think that that was what I was thinking? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah and I made a mistake on it or rather I forgot to put a number on one guy. (I did the same on sound editing) one problem is that some people are under alternate names sometimes. Oh well. A list I could of swore there was a page on here I've been trying to find is one of animated films nominated for an Oscar (unless if the page was taken down). Wgolf (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't recall any such list (animated Oscar films). You can always ask at the Reference Desks. Do you ever use those? You would get an answer very quickly if you posted there. If there is indeed a Wiki article on that topic, someone would find it very quickly and point it out to you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just started a sandbox for animated Oscar nominees[edit]

User:Wgolf/sandbox/List of Feature Length Animated films nominated for an Oscar

Granted of course there are just 2 I have so far-Snow White and Pinocchico, there are going to be some cases like Roger Rabbit where I'm not sure if I should put it or not. (Heck the Academy apparently considers Stuart Little an animated film as Stuart Little 2 was submitted in for animated feature, despite the fact it was a CGI star, I think that is going a little too technical or else Avatar should count on here) Wgolf (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I checked out that sandbox page. Looks good! What do you mean, you only have 2 so far (Snow White and Pinocchio)? That page looks like it has about 50 ... no? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was when I started it, I got up to 2000. Welcome though. (I thought of going by cat but there are too many nominated in the same categories) and thanks. Wgolf (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I got ya. Good luck. That is a good idea for a new page. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah thanks, though of course its not ready to be an article yet. Wgolf (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not yet. Good start, though. Good luck with it! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Got all the films down, of course the layout will need to be fixed big time I know. Wgolf (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I agree. But, a good start. Good luck with it! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And the remake I found out was The Children's Hour-it was a remake of a film called These Three. I never knew that was a remake till today. Wgolf (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never knew that until just now. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And on another amazing note, I found the earliest born film actor ever: Joseph Jefferson, whoa, 1829! Wgolf (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow. But he died in 1905. Did they even have films at that point? Are you sure he was a film actor? Not stage? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Short films, such as A trip to the Moon was in 1902 lol, still cool. Wgolf (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmmmm. Very interesting. I never knew! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The animation page I made[edit]

RE: User:Wgolf/sandbox/List of Feature Length Animated films nominated for an Oscar. Okay I'm not sure what to do with the layout now...Wgolf (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. You should format all that info into a sortable table. The columns would be something like this: Year, Academy Award ceremony; Name of film; Category (of Award); Result (Nomination versus Win). Something like that. It would look similar to the chart in this page: List of Academy Awards for Walt Disney. That would be my suggestion. What do you think? Do you know how to create a Wikipedia table? If not, I can get one started for you. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks-not to sure really, yeah some help be nice, thanks! Wgolf (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's a start (below). Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Film Year Ceremony Category Result Notes
A Boy Named Charlie Brown 1970 43rd Academy Awards Best Original Score Nominee
A Bug's Life 1998 71st Academy Awards Best Original Score Nominee
Ha thanks, of course I'll have to find a way to not have the words the, an and a not show up in alphabetical order (of course that always is a problem with spreadsheets) I've always loved Disney animation and I am excited to see how this will go. (Some categories that were nominated at the Oscars still have some missing films, surprisingly 3 films from the 1970s are missing pages for films nominated for song-I was born in the 80s so I really don't recognize them) Well thanks again Wgolf (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello. Yes, that's a very good point. I had forgotten about that issue. So, here below is an example of how you would list the film The Adventures of Tintin. If you use the "sortname" template, the film title will appear in the list as The Adventures of Tintin. However, it will sort alphabetically as Adventures of Tintin, The. In other words, the word "the" will not be used when alphabetizing the film's title; it will appear alphabetically under the word "adventures". Here is a good article for you to refer to: List of Academy Award-winning films. That Wikipedia article lists every film that has ever won any Academy Award. So, that list gives you many, many, many examples of films that have the words a, an, the, etc., in the title; and it shows exactly how they are correctly formatted in order to correctly sort alphabetically. Let me know if you have any questions or need more help with this chart. In the chart below, I just used the words "actor" and "cat" to show how the film titleThe Adventures of Tintin will sort under the word "Adventures" and not under the word "The"; and, thus, it would come in between "actor" and "cat". Of course, if it was sorted under the word "the", it would appear after the entry for "cat" in alphabetical order. Also, see this page (Template:Sortname) if you need more info and details about how the "sortname" template works exactly. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Film Year Ceremony Category Result Notes
Actor
The Adventures of Tintin 2011 84th Academy Awards Best Original Score Nominee
Cat
Oh cool, feel free to help out with the table also, I will need some links for the page of course (to the actual Oscar site for sure) Wgolf (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, do you like the basic set-up of the chart above or no? Can you think of any columns that should be added in or removed? I was thinking of adding two additional columns ... one for how many total nominations the film received and one for how many total awards the film received. But I was not sure about that. What thoughts do you have? Also, as far as adding links, I would suggest many/most of the links found at the bottom of the Academy Awards article, in the "External links" section. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah kind of fell behind on this ha ha. You could help me if you like. Have a great day! Wgolf (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but you still haven't answered the questions that I asked of you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does sound good, but as for films with multiple noms like Beauty and the Beast come to play of course. Wgolf (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If a film like Beauty and the Beast had, say, six nominations ... I would give it six separate rows in the chart, one for each category/nomination. Like this:
Film Year Ceremony Category Result Notes
Beauty and the Beast 1991 64th Academy Awards Best Picture Nominee
Beauty and the Beast 1991 64th Academy Awards Best Original Score Winner
Beauty and the Beast 1991 64th Academy Awards Best Original Song Winner "Beauty and the Beast"
Beauty and the Beast 1991 64th Academy Awards Best Original Song Nominee "Be Our Guest"
Beauty and the Beast 1991 64th Academy Awards Best Original Song Nominee "Belle"
Beauty and the Beast 1991 64th Academy Awards Best Sound Mixing Nominee

Oscar winning film that I'm making a page for[edit]

Okay I'm making one for Folies Bergère de Paris, which is one of only 4 films to win dance direction, so yeah you can add this to the list of Oscar winning films. Now what I'm wondering is-shouldn't there be a category to put this under? I mean it be pointless to have a category for dance direction winners, so yeah what to do? Wgolf (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I am not sure what you are asking? Please clarify? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was the category of best dance direction that was only for 3 years, so wouldn't a film that won this category have a category on Wikipedia to go under? Think it would just go under Academy Award winners? Since there is none for the category it won in. (Like this film A Damsel in Distress). And yeah this film page I'm making should be added to the list of Oscar winning pages when you get a chance. Wgolf (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess that you can make that category. But, so few films would be in that category. Maybe check what has been done for other films that also won in those short-lived types of Oscar categories? Also, what did you decide to do with my charts above (animated films)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still thinking about it-well you can add that film to the Oscar winner chart now! For some reason there were quite a few links that went to it that were spelled differently. Well good luck. Wgolf (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elm Conflict[edit]

When you find time for it please take a look at Battle of the elms article, for spelling check etc. Appreciate it. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I will be happy to. I am just walking out the door right now. So, I will get to it later tonight or tomorrow (more likely, the former). I am curious why you asked me, though? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess I have to flatter your a bit here.. I contacted you about this because I know you are an awesome editor frankly :) And I am planning to bring the article to DYK tomorrow so a little pro-help is always needed. Oh, thank you for your assistance!--BabbaQ (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. A very quick reply because I am heading out the door. Since you are bringing this to DYK tomorrow, I will be sure to get to it tonight. Some time later tonight, when I get home from my Shakespeare class! Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I promised, I took the time tonight to review and edit the Elm Conflict article. It was very well done. I found only 2 or 3 very minor errors. (Perhaps, they were more stylistic preferences than they were "errors".) Good luck with the DYK; I hope it goes through! Thanks also for the kind words and the compliment you paid me. I very sincerely appreciate that. Thanks! Again, best of luck with the DYK! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello. Is there some page somewhere, where editors get to vote on your nomination for DYK? I could not find it, and I would like to vote/comment in support of the nomination. Please let me know where I can find the correct page. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First of all thank you for your assistance with the article. Any help is always appreciated! :) Here is the link to the nomination. Template:Did you know nominations/Elm Conflict.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I did actually see that link. But, is that where editors (like myself) actually include their "Support" or "Oppose" comments? I did not see any there (yet), so I assumed I was on the wrong page? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess that is not possible. But you can if you like weigh in on which of the blurbs to use. :)--BabbaQ (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think DYK operates using !votes as many other proceedings (e.g., AfD) do. Other than the provision of comments to improve the article/nomination, the approval and selection is typically made by editors who specialize in DYK, rather than by poll. So I don't think comments to Support or Oppose are solicited there. Dwpaul Talk 17:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I added my comment in support of this DYK nomination. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Did this ever get posted in the DYK? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You find the nomination at the article talk page. Still no one has reviewed it. Sometimes it is reviewed in the same day and sometimes a month later. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also I have just nominated the articles Rudolf Fredrik Berg and Henry Dunker that I created for DYK as well :).--BabbaQ (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks. I was unfamiliar with how the DYK process works. Best of luck. I hope your three nominations get used in DYK! Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bergdahl note[edit]

Army says he's on 'regular duty' — http://bigstory.ap.org/article/bergdahl-returned-regular-army-duty :Sca (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Yes, that was the very first news story that I saw this morning. In the news report that I read, it said that he will be meeting with investigators who will inquire about the night of his disappearance. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NYT had a piece a few days ago (reprinted in Boise's alleged newspaper) about his personal history, estrangement from parents, experiments with different lifestyles, etc. Having worked there some years ago, I'm familiar with the insular and highly ... obstreperous? ... atmosphere of that area, dominated by the $un Valley $ki Re$ort, with its multimillion-dollar vacation "homes" and scores of tony eateries. [10] Sca (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I'd like to see that NYT piece. I tried to find it, but no luck. Do you have a link? From all that I see, that Bergdahl seems like a bit of an odd duck, like he's "off the beaten path" and "marches to his own drummer". I am not impressed with his Dad, either. The apple never falls far from the tree. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Um, there is a link after "eateries" above. Sca (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, thanks. I totally missed that! Thanks. I will read it now. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another story today. [11] (Let me know if you've had enough of them.) Sca (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks again. I just read that article you sent me. A very strange and bizarre case. Something seems amiss, here. My personal opinion: this kid has a few screws loose. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At this point in life my opinion is, everyone's weird in some way (except me, of course). Sca (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just now, I just saw another news report. Bergdahl refuses to speak to his parents. Something is very fishy; something is not adding up. This kid is a major head case. Probably, the parents are, also. Have to wait and see what the investigation uncovers. Who remains a POW for five years and then refuses to speak with their parents when they are freed?!?!?!? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are a lot of strange people in the Wood River Valley, trust me. Been there. Sca (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, there's three strange birds, for sure: Bergdahl, his Dad, and his Mom. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does dysfunctional come to mind? Sca (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, very much so. I don't know all the facts. But, certainly from what I do know. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Diane Whipple[edit]

Hi. I am totally confused by your recent edit to Talk:Diane Whipple. Why did you move (rename) the Talk Page, but not move (rename) the actual article page, itself? Shouldn't the name of an article and the name of its Talk Page always correspond? Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help 1[edit]

What's up? My email is enabled if you can't say here. --j⚛e deckertalk 06:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. Thanks. Please see the following Talk Page section: Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#Robbery in lead?. A user by the name of User:Cwobeel is persistently and repeatedly accusing me of improper conduct in my Wikipedia editing and activities. He (or she) is making these accusations simply because my opinion differs from his (or hers) about the topic under discussion. Please advise. If you peruse other sections of that Talk Page, you will see that other editors also have issues with User:Cwobeel. Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello. I just came here to ask: "what is the status of the help request on my Talk Page?". I was surprised to see the "done" notation. Please advise (at my Talk Page). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, yes, I should have closed both, as I took them to relate to the same issue. I'll close it, and of course this is without prejudice to opening a new one. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 17:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. Thanks. I had asked you to reply at my Talk Page. They are two separate issues. Are you helping with the first issue, but not the second? Or both? Please advise. Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are asking me to take administrative action at this point against Cwobeel, as this point I am declining to do so myself I've explained that the NOTAFORUM and attendant accusations appear wrong. If he persists there, I would suggest following up at another venue, or reopening this request. You'll probably do best to open another section here if you reopen an admin request for that, as it will avoid other admins thinking that your request is being handled. You might also try posting at AN or whatever, or consider dispute resolution. With respect to returning to the content, I would suggest reopening any change you feel appropriate as a discussion in a new section, because the digressions into NOTAFORUM and user accusations derailed anything coming from it. Sorry you aren't satisfied, and thank you for your work on trying to improve a very difficult article on our encyclopedia under frustrating circumstances. This is my last statement on the matter. Best, --j⚛e deckertalk 17:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help 2[edit]

I'd like to request the help of an administrator. Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not an administrator, but you should probably explain what it is you need help with so an administrator has something to work with. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 19:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. It's a follow-up from the section above on this Talk Page. Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Joseph A. Spadaro: there is nothing further that needs to be done with the above section. The user has been warned, there is no further admin action necessary. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huh? I am totally confused. Why was this "closed"? Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, you need to very specifically ask for what you need help with anytime and everytime you use a help template. Second, you say that the above section is not resolved, but frankly it is. There is nothing more to do be done based on the information you've given. If you are having issues with another editor, you need to report it to the WP:DRN. Third, there is nothing more to advise on with respect to any of your requests. If you feel the need to open a new request, or need more information you need to be very specific with your request. Tell us exactly what you need. Saying "please advise" does not tell us what you want advisement for. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. But I am still confused. Your second reply states many reason for which my request was closed. But, your first reply is quite different; it states that the request was closed because "the user has been warned". So, what is the reason for the closure? Is it the reasons you stated in the second reply? Or the reasons (that were different) that you stated in the first reply (i.e., that the user has been warned)? Please advise. If the user has been warned, please direct me to where that discussion or conversation or warning is (a link). Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my first response I said the use was warned and there was no further action necessary. In my second response I elaborated saying that whole section is taken care of and more response. The user was warned and later blocked User_talk:Cwobeel#August_2014. They were unblocked on the condition that they are taking a break from the articles. If they resume the same issues again later, they will be blocked again. That is taken care of. There is nothing more to do here. You could've looked at the user's talkpage to find that information out. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. This is the first that I had ever heard that the User was warned and blocked. Yes, I could have looked at his Talk Page. But why would I do that? What would ever prompt me to do that? No one ever kept me in the loop and told me that he was warned and/or blocked. This is the first I am hearing of it. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No one has to keep you aware of anything. If you were so curious about what was going to happen to a user, the best place to look would be their talkpage, not pinging Admins to find the answer for you. TLSuda (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look, you are missing the point. And please don't try to shift responsibility on to me here. I placed an admin help request. And I was simply waiting for a reply. What's wrong with that? I was simply waiting for a reply. While I was waiting for a reply, why would I go review other people's Talk Pages? I have better things to do. I assumed that if someone addressed my concern, they would make me aware of that. Since no one had replied to my request, I assumed that no one addressed my concern. Hence, I was patiently waiting for a reply to my request. There was no reply until today (from you). This is the first that I am hearing of any warnings or blocks. So, do not shift responsibility back on to me. What I did was perfectly reasonable. I placed a request and patiently waited for a reply. Don't spin this some other way so as to deflect responsibility away from admin's and on to me. If some admin addressed my issue, common sense dictates that they would make me aware that my issue was addressed. And they would notify me that my request was handled. That's not a lot to ask. And, in fact, it's a pretty reasonable expectation. No? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is wrong is that you are using admin help requests inappropriately and taking time away from other users who need true admin assistance for issues they cannot solve themselves. You could've found the answer by checking on the user's talk page (the same exact way that I did). You have opened 4-5 admin help requests for petty things that you or any other editor can find out. And most of the time it takes others a while to figure out what you are actually asking for. Joe Decker (an admin) did reply, and told you that everything was taken care of. It doesn't matter if you know exactly what happened or not, that's your own curiosity. Please, moving forward, only use the admin help template for issues that require admin help. Otherwise there are many discussion boards or ((Help me)) for those purposes. I'm sorry that you feel I'm being confrontational, but I'm trying to help you learn to be a better editor and to find things for yourself instead of relying on others. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, you are implying (implying? actually, outright stating) that I did something wrong here. And I don't see what I did wrong. I was having an issue with a User; I placed an Admin Help request for an admin to intervene. I got no replies to my Admin Help request. Hence, I patiently waited for a reply. I will repeat that. Hence, I patiently waited for a reply. Having received no reply, I assumed that admins were busy ... and when they were not busy, they would get back to me with some reply. I am not obsessive compulsive over this. I was willing to patiently wait for a reply. I felt no need to scurry all over Wikipedia, looking to see if someone fixed my problem. If an admin addressed my issue, I assumed (heaven forfend) that they would notify me of that. If an admin answered my help request, I assumed (heaven forfend) that they would notify me of that also. So, no, I did nothing wrong. And you are insistent that I did. If other people happened to have a problem with the same User (that I was complaining about), how would I know that? And why would I follow up on their issues? Their issues are of no concern to me. And, not to mention, I would have no way of knowing that others also had an issue with the same User as I was having issues with. No, I am not a mind reader. No, I am not obsessive compulsive. No, I am not impatient. I posted a request and was patiently waiting for a reply. Which, according to you, is wrong. If that's the sort of "help" you offer, I don't need your help. And I will respectfully decline it. Not to mention, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. I'd rather deal with another admin. Perhaps one who is less confrontational and less accusatory. Perhaps one with some people skills / communication skills. Perhaps one who really wants to help, as opposed to point fingers. Don't expect regular editors to be mind-readers. Don't expect regular editors to know all the "ins and outs" of the admin's role. I think keeping someone in the loop (when they make an admin help request) is a reasonable expectation. Your response to that is "nobody owes you anything, Joe". Come on now. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conduct at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown[edit]

Please stop using the talk page to make personal attacks on other users. Your accusations of hypocrisy, bias, agenda, and the like are not constructive and are contrary to Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks. Please focus on content, not on your perceived problems with users. Dyrnych (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dyrnych: Dude, are you insane? Read the thread. I attempted to edit/improve the article. Some other asshole editor gives me a snot-ass comment. And I am the one being rebuked? Not him? Give me a fucking break. Please. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please do not remove the ((collapse)) templates from the digressed discussion at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown. They are there for a good reason. There is no reason why other editors need to review or participate in that discussion, and you yourself seemed to object that they were doing so. I asked you politely to move the conversation where it belongs – to the Talk page of the editor who you clashed with. You refused to do so, so the ((collapse)) template is a reasonable compromise. Dwpaul Talk 16:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some of the discussion relates to the editing of the article. Some does not. So, only "collapse" the unrelated stuff; not the related stuff. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly what I did. Only your first entry, concerning Wilson's resignation, was relevant to the improvement of the article. It was not collapsed. Dwpaul Talk
I disagree. My final post was directly related to the editing of the article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, your "final" comment isn't related to the improvement of the article; it is intended to be provocative and to perpetuate the conflict. You are continuing, apparently, the behavior mentioned to you by the OP above three months ago to the day. Dwpaul Talk 17:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And you can discern my "intent", how exactly? You know my intent better than I do, is that correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Like all of us, your intent is inferred from your actions. If they are at odds, that is something you may want to consider carefully. Dwpaul Talk 17:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I already explicitly indicated my intent. You are making the affirmative choice to not believe me. That is an issue with you, not with me. It is my belief that I know my intent better than you know my intent. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help[edit]

I am having an issue with another editor. I'd like the intervention of an administrator. Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which other editor? What is the issue? What administrative action do you want performed? We need at least some basic information if you want us to help you. Yunshui 雲水 14:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. Thanks. I was attempting to improve an article by making a proposal at the article's Talk Page. Another editor (Cwobeel) acted uncivilly toward me. I questioned him about his behavior. Yet, another editor (JBarta) told me to "just forget about it and let it go". Through the course of the discussion, it was I who was being criticized and scolded. Nothing at all happened with the other (misbehaving) editor. The discussion is here: Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#Wilson resigned.. Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, my advice here is that you drop the stick. The discussion is closed, the edits have been made, you aren't likely to get an apology off Cwobeel - nobody gains anything by re-visiting that conversation. JBarta's original advice was as good as you're going to get, and you should have taken it at the time. No administrator is going to censure Cwobeel for pointing out a perfectly reasonable instance of WP:SOFIXIT, so demanding administrator attention on this issue is a waste of your time (and, co-incidentally, everyone else's). Yunshui 雲水 14:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I understand what you are saying. And I don't want/expect an apology from that editor. But, let me ask you a question. When I act uncivil toward someone, everyone is all over me. I get censured and rebuked. When another person acts uncivil toward me, everyone says "ah, just let it go". So, why the discrepancy? Why should I always be in a lose-lose situation, either way? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Based purely on the conversation at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown, and viewing it from the perspective of an uninvolved bystander, I don't actually see any incivility in Cwobeel's initial comment. It seems to simply be a playful way of reminding you that anyone can edit, and so you are free to make the changes yourself. That you were not actually able to make the changes yourself isn't something they could have known. Your response was, I hope you can agree, rather defensive and high-handed, basically making a mountain out of a molehill. I realise that the subject of the article is a contentious one, and so tempers are likley to flare more easily, but that's all the more reason to assume good faith. Had you simply said, in your first response, "I know I could edit it myself, but I don't have the time to do it justice right now," the conversation would have been over and done with then and there, and everyone could have continued editing. Why choose to get into a pointless argument? Yunshui 雲水 15:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow. Wow. So this is all my fault. My response was defensive. His response was merely playful. Wow. Wow. Thank you for your "help". Wow. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I concur 100% with what JBarta said to you: "It was a snarky remark. We're all human, we've all done it. He said it, then I called him on it and you called him on it. It's done. Sometimes it's good to just file it under 'shit happens', let it go and move on." I also concur 100% with what Yunshui has said above. Persisting in making a big scene about this is unconstructive. There are far bigger and more worthwhile matters to put time into. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great! Thanks, all, for the constructive advice! Just so I am clear ... next time that I myself act uncivil to another editor, we will all agree that the correct response to that other editor will be similar to the above discussion. We will tell that other editor "ah, just let it go, just forget about it, shit happens, and please concern yourself with more important matters". Is my understanding correct? We are all "on the same page" with this, correct? Just want to make sure that I am understanding the advice given to me, and that we will also give the same advice to others if/when I am the perpetrator (rather than the recipient) of uncivil behavior. Am I understanding correctly how this process works? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. You have asked for help from an administrator. You have in fact received responses from two different administrators, who both agreed. Persisting in asking for admin help after you have received responses which were not the ones you wanted, known as admin shopping, is disruptive.
  2. Deliberately misrepresenting what others have said to you in order to make some silly point is disruptive. What I said above means exactly what it said, and neither more nor less. To pretend to think that it is reasonable to make the broad kind of extrapolation you are making, and simplistically applying it to possible different circumstances on different occasions which have yet to arise, is pointless.
  3. If you continue to be disruptive you may be blocked. I strongly recommend dropping this molehill which you seem for some reason to want to build into a mountain. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Translation: "Joe, when you yourself are the perpetrator of uncivil behavior, you will get rebuked and chastised and sanctioned (e.g., blocked). However, Joe, when you are the victim/recipient of the uncivil behavior, the onus will still also be placed on you (and not the perpetrator). Because, Joe, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. You need to let it go, and just forget about it; you know, because shit happens. Joe, you should assume good faith and assume that the perpetrator of the uncivil behavior is merely being playful! Reason: this is the path of least resistance for administrators, and it makes our job easier and it makes our life easier. Because, we are really not all that interested in helping people." I think I got it now. Thanks! You administrators are great! You are all so very helpful! Thank you again! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. I made it clear to you that if you continued your disruption, including wasting administrators' time by repeatedly adminshopping, you were likely to be blocked, and you went ahead and did it. (Also, although it is not part of the reason for the block, I will take the opportunity to point out that your message above is complete rubbish.). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)). However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(1) When does the block expire? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
20:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC) unless I got my time zones wrong. At that time, I also suggest you drop the stick. You may be right or wrong, but you are prickly. In a crowd, that is not good. Admins (and users in general) are inconsistent, both individually and as a group. If someone gets away with a certain borderline behaviour sometimes, that does not establish a general right for all users to get away with the same behaviour all the time (otherwise, we inevitable if slowly move towards "everything goes"). Also be aware that different editors have different perspectives and different knowledge (in particular, we all must speculate about motives and thoughts), so we may in good faith come to different conclusions to what for you might look like similar situations. To cite Unix philosophy (the concept, not the article): "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send." That strategy is robust - it tends to de-escalate conflicts even if people make occasional errors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The action taken by the administrator who blocked Joe was wholly disproportionate. It's that administrator who should be blocked for such an arbitrary use of his admin privileges. While I agree that Joe was making a mountain out of a molehill Joe could just be ignored just as people advised Joe to ignore the guy whose remark started all this. What I really think is outrageous in this whole story is that Joe was blocked at all even for a day. But this is Wikipedia for you. Contact Basemetal here 16:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jeffrey MacDonald case[edit]

Mr. Spardo:

I just now saw your February reply to a query I made on the Talk Page for the Jeffrey MacDonald case. I left you a response there if you have any interest in following up. I’d be interested in your thoughts regarding my take on this rather curious point. I found an email address for Brian Murtagh at a law firm a couple of years ago and put the point to him, but I received no reply (which is what I had expected even if he read it). Best regards.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I am happy to continue the dialogue about this bizarre case. I replied at that Talk Page. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question for User Jarry1250[edit]

Hello. In my research, I ran across the following page: User:Jarry1250/Findings. So, it seems that you have an interest in – and a knowledge of – how the whole disambiguation process works. I am assuming so, at least. If that is the case, I'd like to know if I may ask you a question. Please let me know. Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Format of titles on a Talk Page[edit]

Whereever you do end up having the discussion, invite me. I'm not sure which way I'll chime in, but I am interested and I have found that there are categories where like Category:New York Times people that are italicized, but the Category Talk isn't...Naraht (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Please see the following two discussions: (1) Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 117#Format of titles on a Talk Page ... and ... (2) Wikipedia:Help desk#Format of titles on a Talk Page. Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Geolocate an IP address[edit]

Hello J. I wanted to let you know about finding where an IP is editing from. If you look at the box at bottom of this you will see a link labelled "Geolocate" and next to it one labelled "Alternate". If you click on either of those you will go to a website that tells you the location of the IP. That is usually where the person is editing from but there are clever people out there who know how to bounce around the net so they could be in a different county (on a different continent even) so you have to take it with a grain of salt. Also both of those websites only let you use their services a few times each day (I think it is ten times but I could be wrong) unless you pay to get their service. Also be aware that the IPv6 address (those really long ones) do not have links to those sites. A couple editors say that you can use the WHOIS to track them down but I have never been able to figure out how that works. Of course you may know all of this already so my apologies for taking up so much room on your talk page. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 23:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. That is very interesting. And I certainly never knew that. Now that I know how to do that, I will use that function once in a while. Thanks. So, I was able to click the "Geolocate" link and also the "Alternate" link. And, yes, it did show me Venezuela as the IP address origin. So far, so good. But how do I get to a page like this to begin with? I can't figure that part out. For example, I tried to do that with myself. When I go to "User contributions" page for me, I do not see all of those links at the bottom (Geolocate, Alternate, etc.), as I saw in the page you showed me above. Why is that? And how do I get to the "correct page"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok lets see if I can answer everything. First off the box with the geolocate etc only appears on IP pages. Once a person registers a username you get a whole different set of links at the bottom of the "User Contributions page" (I'll use "UCp" from now on to save room) as you saw. Now, as to how to get to an IPs "UCp" there are a few ways to get there but I will just list the most common two. The first one is the easiest - when an IP signs a post on a talk page you will see their IP number, all you have to o is click on it. If you go back to the very first post on the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#2015 Miss Universe Pageant thread and click on 98.85.30.24 you will be taken to their "UCp" where you will see that they have only made one post. Then you can click on the geolocate and see that the IP is in Florida. Now the second way is a bit more involved. 1) You go to an article Miss Universe 2) you click on the "View history" tab near the top of the article and that will take you here. 3) Any time you see an IP in the list just click on the number and that will take you to their "UCp" - again this does not work with named users. For named users you will see (talk | contribs)‎ next to their name. Click on the "contribs" and you will go to their "UCp". I know my explanation may be a bit confusing. Try clicking on these for awhile and I think you will pick up how things work pretty quickly. If not I'll try and explain it a different way. Also I am not programming savvy at all so I know "how" it works but I don't know "why". People at the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) are good at answering those questions. Gotta run now but I have your talk page watchlisted and I will get back to ya when I can. MarnetteD|Talk 00:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. Thanks. No, your explanation was perfectly clear and easy to follow. I was familiar with some of that, any way. So, I guess my question is: if we have a named user (not an IP address), how do we geolocate him? Or is that not possible? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bottom line is that you and I can't. I have wondered if there is something that an admin is able to do with a checkuser to locate a named users city/country of origin but I don't think so. I've always found it amusing that named editors are actually more anonymous (as long as they don't put a bio on their user page) than an IP. Enjoy the rest of your week on WikiP but even more so off. MarnetteD|Talk 03:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. That seems quite odd that an IP address can be geolocated, but a regular (named) user cannot. Oh, well ... so be it. Thanks for the help. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What page should I go to?[edit]

((Adminhelp))

What is the best page that I should go to, if a content dispute cannot be resolved on an article's Talk Page? I placed an "Admin Help" tag on the article Talk Page, and some editor accused me of being disruptive. In a nutshell, this is the issue. The Tom Brady article makes no mention whatsoever about the DeflateGate controversy. I have added material that is well sourced (CNN, for example) and worded neutrally. And editors on that page (and its Talk Page) keep deleting it. The article has absolutely no mention of this incident (about which, clearly, there are tons of reliable sources reporting). And, in fact, Tom Brady himself held a press conference about this very topic. Needless to say, the article (and its Talk Page) are mostly attended to by Brady fans. I feel that it is indisputable that this "huge" topic should merit some mention on the Tom Brady page. To not mention it at all smacks of POV. Violates neutrality. And leaves a glaring omission. And, in a nutshell, fans of Brady want to white-wash the article of any mention whatsoever of the topic. So, where should I be going with this question? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I am a relatively new at Wikipedia and hope that you might be able to point me in the correct direction. Please see the Talk page for Tom Brady. Any help or thoughts will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.  Jerry Stockton (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help request[edit]

I'd like to request help. Someone keeps deleting my post from a Talk Page, because they do not like what it states. And all it states it factual information. (Which they don't like.) Please advise. Here is the Talk Page: Talk:Tom Brady. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. OK. So if an editor has concerns that the article is being edited POV, what is that editor supposed to do? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)
Neutral POV Noticeboard. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Now, I am confused. And I'd like to understand what you are telling me. For clarification on my part. So, if my concern is that a specific article is being edited in a biased and POV manner, I cannot mention it on the Talk Page of that article? Is that what you are saying? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your latest note was okay and wasn't removed. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure how that answers the question I asked. My question was, once again, Thanks. Now, I am confused. And I'd like to understand what you are telling me. For clarification on my part. So, if my concern is that a specific article is being edited in a biased and POV manner, I cannot mention it on the Talk Page of that article? Is that what you are saying? Thanks. I don't see how your reply answers that question. Your reply was: Your latest note was okay and wasn't removed. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And actually, yes, my note was indeed removed. I myself had to restore it (a few times). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your latest addition of the comment that was previously reverted has not been undone. You have mentioned, on the article's talk page, your concerns about the potential POV-editing of the article. That is fine. You are continuing to discuss on the article's talk page. That is also fine. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. But, actually, it (the modified version) was deleted. And I restored it back. More than once, I believe. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. Your latest addition of the comment that was previously reverted has not been undone. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, yes. Obviously, the latest one was not undone, since it is still on the page, as we speak. I am referring to the one or two or three times before that. The comment was deleted several times, and I kept reverting those deletes. I didn't count exactly, but it was probably 3 or 4 times. In other words, the only reason that that comment (to which you linked) is still on the Talk Page is because it was deleted and then I had to go back and revert that deletion (several times). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help request[edit]

Another user (User:Calidum) keeps deleting my posts on this Talk Page (Talk:Tom Brady) for no valid reason. Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've left them a note. Stop repeateadly using ((adminhelp)); if this still continues, go to WP:AN/I and live with whatever comes out of that. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. You left who a note? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help request[edit]

((adminhelp))

Can someone please take a look at my User Page, located here: User:Joseph A. Spadaro. At the very, very bottom of the page, there are two "MfD" notices. Can someone please explain what all of this means? I don't understand what this is all about. This happened a while back. But, I just noticed it today. I never noticed it before, because it is "buried" at the bottom of my page. And, I guess I never typically scroll down that far. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Joseph A. Spadaro, the links at the bottom there relate to two pages that you were involved in contributing towards that have since been deleted (the names showing in red show that they no longer exist). These are normally posted on your talk page but appear to have been moved to your userpage at some point.
On a sidenote unless a query requires administrator attention it is best to use ((helpme)) rather than the ((adminhelp)) tag as this will increase the number of users who may respond so can usually speed up your query response. Amortias (T)(C) 17:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Yes, but that is precisely my question. These are not "normal" articles (that I was involved in editing) that were being considered for deletion. These were my Sandbox pages, in which I was working on articles, edits, etc. Why would anyone want to (or even care about) the material that I am working on in my Sandbox pages? And why would it get deleted? Is there a way to revert that? I don't understand this at all. I thought that that was the very purpose of Sandbox pages? Also, I am familiar with the AfD process and have participated in several over the years. I never even heard of the "MfD" process? Also, I am assuming that these are more "administrator"-type questions, not "regular editor"-type questions. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MFD is the process for deleting non-articles that dont meet WP:SPEEDY or WP:PROD criteria. The process is identical to WP:AFD but refers to specifically non-article pages. The sandbox pages still have to meet various criteria to be allowed to stay on Wiipedia - the pages are still accessible by anyone who accesses the website. If you wish to review the deletion of the pages you will need to go here and state the reasons you think the pages should be retored. You can review the reasons for the deletion of the pages on the MFD pages here and here. It appears that there were concerns regarding the content on the pages but this will need to be discussed at the deletion review mentioned above. Amortias (T)(C) 17:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those discussions are archived, "closed", and two months old at this point. Now what? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You will need to to to the WP:DRV page to request they be undeleted. You can present your case for having them restored and an administrator can review your request. Amortias (T)(C) 18:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I will have to read through that when I get a chance. But a more general question. A Sandbox is used to help edit or change an article. To sort of "play around with it", to see how it looks, etc. My understanding is that this is the very purpose of a Sandbox. So, if I have "copied" an article, in order to go in and edit/improve it (on my Sandbox page, not in the article itself), why would that get deleted? And why would that be of concern to anyone? I don't really understand this. And I'd rather understand it, before I go to "make my case" for an un-deletion. I am perplexed. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you wanted to improve an article and copied the whole article there may be concerns about the reasons for doing so. The best option would be to work on the article section by section, this should help reduce concern about why the entire article was copied to a sandbox.If you have a whole article in your sandbox unless you are almost constantley updating it to reflect he current version there may end up being issues with the consistency of the article. It would be better to work section by section to reduce the chances of changes you hope to make conflicting with changes other users have made. The best thing to do would be to explain what your intentions were with regards to the sandbox copies at DRV. You normally would have had chance to do this at the MFD page but it appears that these were misplaced on your userpage than your talk page - this might be something worth mentioning at the DRV as it could be considered a procdural error with the process. Amortias (T)(C) 18:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, thanks for the info and advice. I will pursue this after I read the link you provided. However, as far as your "section-by-section" idea: sometimes that is not practical or applicable. For example, if I am trying to "revamp" the entire article. And, by the way, these usually concern lists and not articles proper. So, I would set up different charts and tables to see what looks better, etc. That sort of thing. For example, something like this: User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page14. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The two deletion discussions are still readble. I think what we have is that User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page62 was a copy or part of an article that was deleted. Since you last edited that page on 10:31, 29 April 2011 and it was deleted on 17:33, 31 December 2014 - it's effectivly a stale draft and ripe for deletion. The same with User:Joseph_A._Spadaro/Sandbox/Page30 - last edited 05:46, 28 March 2008, and deleted 17:34, 31 December 2014. You cannot ask for WP:DRV as there is now no article to paste the section back into, and you cannot have it as a new article as the attribution will have been lost. If this is important then you will have to get the original articles restored at WP:DRV first. Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. But, you used a lot of "jargon" that I did not quite understand. Are you saying that this info is still able to be "found" and "retrieved"? Or that it is not? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deletion on Wikipedia is really "hidden from public view". The software does not allow for actual removals. All admins can see the deleted pages and the edit history, just like a normal page. Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remember that user pages do get indexed by Google (I wish they didn't), so editors will find these sorts of pages. Only Draft space is totally unindexed - and drafts there can only remain untouched for 6 months. Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

28.2425 days hath February[edit]

Hey, I just wanted to make sure that you saw WP:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2015 February 17#Is it an anomaly that the month of February 2015 contains four occurrences of each day of the week? (February 10), a belated response to your WP:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2015 February 10#Is it an anomaly that the month of February 2015 contains four occurrences of each day of the week? question, providing a plausible explanation for the "823 years". Cheers!-- ToE 12:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thanks! I scanned that very quickly. But, later today, I will take the time to read it carefully. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I would never have seen that. But, I have a question. I am confused about something. What exactly is that a link to? I was thinking that that was a link to my archived question from a few weeks back? But, that doesn't seem to be the case, since my question and all of its replies are not in the text of that link? So, what exactly is that link that you referred me to? Is it simply another Reference Desk question that happened to use the same exact title as my Reference Desk question? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right after your question archived (I think it's set for 7 days on WP:RDMA) the Daily Telegraph reader opened a new section with their answer. I added links to each section pointing to the other, and also added a link to your user page in the new section in an effort to call it to your attention (as I think such an action was supposed to generate a notification). The new section just archived, so I updated the link to it from the old section, and at the same time noticed that you hadn't chimed in, prompting my note.
There is some discussion in new section about whether, under any calendar, two consecutive Feb 29 full moons would ever occur exactly 823 years apart, but whatever the spread, the average number will be close enough to 823 years that it seems very likely to be the source of the story you read. -- ToE 19:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks. Now I see what happened. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I would have completely missed it, otherwise. Thanks again. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Kayla Mueller[edit]

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Death Be Not Proud"[edit]

To User talk:WilliamThweatt:

Hi. You had suggested this poem, when I posted my question on the Humanities Reference Desk. Thanks for the suggestion. I have often read this poem, but I never quite "got" what it was saying. The words (to me) are seemingly complex and contradictory when I read it. So, I am never quite sure of what the poem's message is (or is supposed to be). I only catch a brief and vague glimpse that the message is: "Death, you think you are powerful, but you really are not so. And we, as people, will overcome you in the end." (or something like that). Can you offer a little more insight? Thanks. PS: I did read the Wikipedia article "Death Be Not Proud". Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not "people" who will overcome--it's Death who shall be overcome (important difference). Since Death is dependent on other things (it is slave to Fate, Chance, etc.), it cannot claim an independent existence, and is, in effect, nothing but a "short sleep", because afterward comes eternal life. Drmies (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Age or Aged[edit]

I am afraid the status is currently debate fizzled out due to lack of participants with no consensus reached.

I agree with you, age does seem to be a better choice for the US (or possibly at age). Apart from not finding any use of the word "aged" in a US obituary, I also did a quick straw poll of some random (non-Wikipedian) Americans in a chat room and got the "age" or "at age" result.

Unfortunately, I am not an Administrator so I cannot just be bold and change it. Neither can we get an Admin to change it - the discussion at the moment is inconclusive. The failing point is that we have no examples showing how the word is used in a table format. Also, ignoring the counter-suggestions, I can only see yourself and one other (a Canadian) in favour of age. Against, we have a US person and another Canadian.

I do not know what to suggest. Ideally, we need a few more US speakers to overwhelmingly agree on the wording. Failing that, some reliable source showing how the words would be formatted within a table. Periglio (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thanks. What is the best Wikipedia way to solicit more input, more editors, more discussion? I imagine that that Talk Page is extremely low-traffic. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be honest, I struggled to find an appropriate place to advertise. WikiProject Biography is the obvious place, where I did place a notice originally. Having said that, in my experience, the Biography project generates very little response for such a wide ranging project. Alternatively, there are help sections/Village pump that could point you in the right direction. Also, you need to make the requests in a neutral manner, otherwise you could be accused of soliciting votes. Periglio (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I will try the Wikipedia "Help Desk". See what they say there. I will keep you posted. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I posted my question here: Wikipedia:Help desk#How to solicit more input in a discussion to reach consensus. Check it out. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question deleted[edit]

Since you weren't happy with my answer here [12] which implies you want to know how likely it is the policy is actually followed, which we can't answer for BLP reasons, rather than what the actual policy is, I've deleted your question. Nil Einne (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Removed thread about Hillary Clinton email controversy for discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What are the BLP reasons for the generic question that had nothing to do with Clinton? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It clearly wasn't a generic question, as the generic question was already answered but you rejected the answer. The likelihood is 100% that a generic Secretary of State should never send classified info by email. The likelihood that someone will actually do this, is impossible to say without referring to a specific person. Nil Einne (talk) 02:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is not my question. Re-read the question. And stop imputing your own interpretation. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've read it several times. Note if you are referring to the separate secret or top secret classified messaging system i.e. Defense Message System which is sometimes called email, but is distinct from what most people call email, you will need to make this clear. Your current answerquestion only refers to general email. Nil Einne (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW, I won't be reply here further. It will be far better if this is discussed on the RD talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help request[edit]

I'd like to request help from an Admin. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The template says "Ask your question below"—there is no question. I am not an admin, but these links are relevant:
Posting that stuff about Clinton posed as a "factual question" is at best misguided. See concern troll for a well known method of campaigning—anything which might be mistaken as that should not occur on Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is indeed no request here, so I'm closing this as resolved by admin. Feel free to (re)open and make a specific request that involves admin-specific aspects. DMacks (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still no request, if you want help, please explain what you would like. -- GB fan 13:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Warning[edit]

It might just be possible for Mary Poppins to assume good faith of your original question, but you have by now descended into rather blatant trolling. Drop it. The question was inappropriate, Wikipedia is not the place for this. Try Quora. They also have Birthers. Guy (Help!) 13:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fuck you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're not my type. And I just came here to tell you that you're blocked for a week for personal attacks, per [13], but I will I think consult at the admin board because your history indicates we may well be better off without you on a more permanent basis. Guy (Help!) 13:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. And fuck you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bergdahl note[edit]

You might be interested in this or this. Sca (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This Friday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA[edit]

You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA on October 16! (drop-in any time, 6-9pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Double jeopardy[edit]

Hi Joseph,

The discussion disappeared and I assumed it had been archived, but then I couldn't find it in the archives. Apparently Medeis removed it, citing a page about "threats of harm", which I don't really follow, as I didn't see any threats of harm there.

But whatever. Continuing my point, you have the idea that when the outcome of a trial is overturned on appeal, then it is as though the trial had never happened. I do not think that is always true. Specifically, the whole idea of double jeopardy is that our system more broadly applies the notion of "finality" when it benefits the defendant than when it benefits the prosecution.

So determinations that went the defendant's way in the trial are, I believe, final, and barred under the double-jeopardy rule from re-examination, even if the rest of the trial is overturned because of errors in favor of the prosecution. It would be unfair to the defendant to open these to re-examination, simply because there were errors that went against the defendant.

This does not apply to determinations that were not actually made (for example, when there is a hung jury). But I am almost sure that it does apply to ones that the jury did find, explicitly or implicitly. Here's an example I expect you'll agree with: Suppose the jury convicts the defendant on robbery, but acquits him on assault and battery. Then the defendant moves successfully that prejudicial errors in the jury instructions nullify the robbery conviction. You agree that on re-trial, it is not possible to try him again for assault and battery?

It's a little foggier in the "implicit" case, but I think it works the same way. A jury that convicts a defendant of murder and fixes the penalty at life imprisonment has implicitly ruled against the death penalty. On retrial, I do not think the death penalty is available; it is barred by double jeopardy. If you don't think so, please cite a case. --Trovatore (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Trovatore: Hi. Yes, that old conversation seemed to disappear. Medeis removed it, citing a policy about "threats of harm", as you indicated. I reviewed it, after this deletion. The OP said something like "Geez, if I had to do life in prison, I'd rather die ... or I'd rather kill myself" (or some such). Medeis took that as a suicide threat. And did the "threat of harm" removal. The policy cited states something like "take all threats seriously, don't assume that the threat is a joke". I did not think it applied to that particular thread. But, in picking and choosing my battles, this is not one of them. Anyone -- including me -- might say "I'd rather die than serve life in prison". In fact, most people would say that! And I don't think that constitutes a threat of suicide. Particularly -- by the way -- given the fact that I (or the OP) did not in fact receive a life sentence. A silly deletion. It's obviously addressing the (remote) hypothetical of how I (or the OP) would feel if I (or the OP) did ever get a life sentence.
Back to double jeopardy. We seem to disagree. And I do not have the wherewithal to engage in legal research at the moment.
Yes, it is my understanding that when a new trial is ordered, everyone starts from scratch, from square one. I am sure we both recognize that many things can happen in an appeal. They are rarely cut-and-dry; they are rarely black-and-white. But, in the cut-and-dry case of "new trial is ordered", it is my belief that the prosecution starts with a clean slate and that nothing is "off limits". I say this as a general rule. Perhaps the death sentence has some "extra special" rules associated with it. But, even that, I am suspect of.
In your case where the defendant is actually acquitted (on one charge), of course no retrial can occur (on that charge). But, again, it depends on the appeal. I am quite certain that the defense did not appeal the acquittal. I am sure he appealed the "rest of the trial" which did not favor his client. So, in other words, the charge acquitted (assault and battery, in your example) is not even under consideration in the appeal. An appeal usually has several points being appealed (not just one). And the justices review each point, one by one. So, in your hypothetical case, the defense would not be "complaining about" (i.e., appealing) an acquittal that went in their favor. They would be appealing the other things that transpired in the trial. So, the final order of the justices might read "a new trial is ordered with respect to the robbery charge" (or some such).
I think you hit the nail on the head, when you state: It's a little foggier in the "implicit" case, but I think it works the same way. I would agree that it's "foggy" (but not that foggy), and I think it does not work the same way.
Now, in a similar vein, do you have a case to cite that supports your contention? If so, that would answer your question about whether or not I have a case to support the opposing claim. Yes?
Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't. But I'm almost sure you're wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Trovatore: Perhaps I am wrong. If I am wrong, this would be the very first time that I have ever heard of the notion that you are contending. It's an interesting question. And I am intrigued enough to look into it a little. And even to ask around of some of my defense attorney (or prosecution) criminal law lawyer friends. I will likely ask, in time. Just not at the moment. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Trovatore: I just had another thought. Under your scenario, the prosecutor is subsequently "barred" from bringing things up in the second retrial. So, if that "rule" is correct, then clearly it would be a matter of contention between the defense and the prosecution many many times over. The defense would be claiming "this is barred by double jeopardy", while the prosecution would say "no, it's not and here's why not". I would think these would be highly contentious between both sides. And, as such, I would expect there to be quite a bit (or, at least, some) case law addressing these disputes. I have never seen/heard of any such case law. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Trovatore: Here is a (somewhat) interesting and (somewhat) relevant case: [14]. (Note that the article is more than ten years old.) You don't have to read the entire 22-page article. Everything is summarized in the very first paragraph. This case agrees with your contention: after a successful appeal, the prosecution cannot seek higher charges. A couple of points, however. This is a case for New Mexico only. The article specifically states that New Mexico veered away from analyzing the federal double jeopardy clause and only analyzed the New Mexico double jeopardy clause. And the article states that New Mexico's clause offers greater protection than does the federal clause. And this was a case of first impression for New Mexico. I would suspect that if there were federal protection (at the time), they indeed would have cited it in this very case. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your question at the Help desk[edit]

 Hello Joseph A. Spadaro. Replies have been posted to your question at the Help desk. If the problem is solved, please place ((Resolved|1=~~~~)) at the top of the section. Thank you!
Message added on 08:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((helpdeskreply)) template.

About the accuracy of Wikipedia[edit]

You might find Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia interesting, if you haven´t found it already. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Thanks. I will check that out! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ping[edit]

I see that you added a ((ping)) template to an existing message at WP:HD. I think you will find that the ping is effective only if the ping template and your user signature are both added in the same edit. Adding the ping template to an already signed message, or adding a signature to a message which includes the ping template, will fail to notify the other user. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@David Biddulph: Thanks. But I don't understand what you mean? Please explain. I have no idea what the "ping" template is or what it is supposed to do. Someone told me that it somehow lets the other person know that I have replied to them. Please let me know. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
((ping)) tells you what it does, but (as I said) it wouldn't work in the circumstances where you added the template later to a message which had already been signed. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@David Biddulph: Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Final exam for wikilawyers[edit]

@Newyorkbrad: Hi. I ran across this page: Wikipedia:Final exam for wikilawyers. Very interesting. I was wondering: are there any follow-ups to that page? Any answers, responses, discussions, etc.? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your interest. I haven't posted an answer key or anything. There is a little bit of discussion on the talkpage, and I also gave a talk about some of these questions at a Wikiconference a couple of years ago, but it looks like that program wasn't taped or anything. Maybe I should do that again sometime. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Newyorkbrad: Thanks. But I am confused. So, do (did) editors submit their answers to you? Or do people just read the page and give it some thought and take no action? I guess I am unclear on the purpose of that page? I guess I assumed that you were soliciting answers to the questions from whatever editor was interested to submit an answer. No? Thanks. !!!! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wrote and posted it just as food for thought, for lawyers who might have an interest in Wikipedia, and for non-lawyer editors who might have an interest in legal issues affecting Wikipedia. A couple of the questions were based on real incidents in Wikipedia's past, albeit with abstracted facts, while others are more theoretical. And as I indicated, I used it as fodder for a discussion at a Wikiconference once, and might do that again sometime. There are no definitive right and wrong answers, and it certainly isn't an actual exam with papers to be submitted and graded! Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Newyorkbrad: Thanks. Very interesting questions! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your question at the Help desk[edit]

 Hello Joseph A. Spadaro. Replies have been posted to your question at the Help desk. If the problem is solved, please place ((Resolved|1=~~~~)) at the top of the section. Thank you!
Message added on 03:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((helpdeskreply)) template.

Your question at the Help desk[edit]

 Hello Joseph A. Spadaro. Replies have been posted to your question at the Help desk. If the problem is solved, please place ((Resolved|1=~~~~)) at the top of the section. Thank you!
Message added on 04:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((helpdeskreply)) template.

"See also" entries[edit]

Hi there! Generally speaking, see also sections should not repeat links that already appear in the article body. In an ideal article, relevant links would all appear in the article body and the "see also" section wouldn't exist at all. You can read more about this guideline at WP:NOTSEEALSO. Thanks for your contributions, and happy editing! Ibadibam (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ibadibam: Hi. Thanks. Why are you telling me this? What article are you referring to? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(talk page stalker) I'll wager that Ibadibam is referring to this series of edits. General Ization Talk 22:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. That policy is a general guideline. A "should" as opposed to a "must" type of rule. The policy states: As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. (emphasis added). There are many instances in which it is fine to add to the "see also" list something that has already been linked in the article above. I do this when the link is otherwise "lost" in the body of the article, but is still an important topic. Sometimes, a reader wants "see also" type of information, packaged conveniently at the bottom of the article all in one place; the reader does not want to have to go searching through the article for each link, one at a time. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By all means! Ignore all rules, as they say. There has long been a diversity of views about whether a see also section is a mini-outline, or a holding area for related links that should eventually be incorporated into the article. As the years since those first discussions have seen expanded use of categories, navboxes and infoboxes, the practice has tended to favor the latter see-also style. And because the guideline is worded this way, many editors (such as yours truly) regularly purge repeated links from see also sections. This comment is just with a mind toward saving you a bit of future sweat. Ibadibam (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ibadibam: Thanks for the information and for the advice/suggestions. I did not realize that there had been a division of views in the past on this topic. I generally do not pay attention to -- or get involved in -- issue surrounding the "see also" sections. But, as you point out, I guess there are different philosophical approaches. Thanks for taking the time to comment about this on my Talk Page. Best, Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TB[edit]

Hello, Joseph A. Spadaro. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Are there any statistics to identify the rank or popularity of a Wikipedia article?[edit]

I just encountered your help request in the WP:HD archives, and it looks like you didn't get a solid answer. My solution is to go back to WP:5000 — while it doesn't give information on other pages, its "a" footnote has a link to the database dump page from which all this information was compiled. You'd do well to talk with West.andrew.g, who runs WP:5000; he's a computer scientist whose academic specialty is Wikipedia, and I'm sure he'd be able to help you a bit. Nyttend (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nyttend: Very interesting. Thanks! I will review that page. I never knew that such a page existed. Thank you! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Follow-up question regarding Talk:List of submissions to the 88th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film#Date format[edit]

To: User talk:Robert McClenon - Hello. Would you be so kind as to take a look at the discussion on this page (Talk:List of submissions to the 88th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film#Date format) and let me know what I should do? Should I: (A) go in and make my edits; (B) let someone else go in and make these edits; (C) give the discussion more time to develop; or (D) something else? Thanks. What's your advice? I feel strongly that this change should be made. But I have no interest in getting into some big brouhaha with that other editor who (to me) seems fixed/unmovable and unreasonable. I basically just like to edit on Wikipedia, and not get involved in politics, disputes, etc. And the Academy Awards is one of my "things". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

D. File a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Robert McClenon: Thanks. Seems like an awful lot of bureaucracy and "process" for such a simple matter. I can't read through all that and navigate all that silly bureaucracy. Thanks, though. I will probably go with "C" and then "A". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrator help[edit]

I would like to request Administrator Help. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have not said what help you want. Please explain, and then alter the template above to read "answered=no". JohnCD (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re - the following: Talk:List of submissions to the 88th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film#Date format. Can an administrator please "officially" determine what the consensus is. And let me know if I can/cannot make the appropriate changes. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a clear consensus to use American dating format. I shall close the discussion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JamesBWatson: Thanks for taking care of this. Much appreciated. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drumpf ?[edit]

I didn't change it. Unless something strange happened. I have a the drumfinator installed on chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/drumpfinator/hcimhbfpiofdihhdnofbdlhjcmjopilp?hl=en Could it have changed it on it's own when I edited a page? strange.I didn't change it. Unless something strange happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AugusteBlanqui (talk • contribs) 19:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AugusteBlanqui:
I typed in "Trump" when I posted my question a few days ago (or maybe it was yesterday?). Today, I noticed that it said "Drumpf" in the two spots where it had previously said "Trump". When I looked at the edit history, the change occurred during your edit. I don't know how to create a link to a "diff". On the Edit History page, this is the location of the edit made by you:
  • (cur | prev) 03:42, April 21, 2016‎ AugusteBlanqui (talk | contribs)‎ . . (55,605 bytes) (+469)‎ . . (→‎April 21: Requested help to add category box) (undo | thank).
Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Math formula translated into Excel formula[edit]

Re: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics

To: User talk:Tcncv - I'm sorry. Now, I am thoroughly confused. I figured it would be best to "speak" here, separately, so as to not get myself even more confused with other people piping in. Thanks for your help. So, are you interested/willing to answer some questions and help me out with those math and Excel formula questions? Please let me know. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, I'd be happy to help. Are you looking to understand how the calculations work or do you need help getting the formulas to work in Excel? There might be some lag between your posts and my responses, so please be specific on your questions and go ahead and ask multiple questions at once if you like. -- Tom N talk/contrib 22:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the help. And the willingness to help. I don't really care about how or why the formulas work. I just care (and trust) that they do work. And then I care about the correct Excel formulation of the correct formula. So, let me start with this. First, I need to understand which exactly is the correct formula.

Formula "A":

The other editor (User:Dragons flight) said that this was the correct formula:

Notice that there is a "plus" sign before the "r multiplied by the arc sin term". And there is a "minus" sign on the last term (just before the pi multiplied by r divided by 2).

Formula "B":

The other editor (User:Dragons flight) corrected himself and modified his above Formula "A" (which he now says is incorrect) to the now claimed-to-be-correct Formula "B".

Notice that there is still a "plus" sign before the "r multiplied by the arc sin term". But now there is a "plus" sign (instead of a "minus" sign) on the last term (just before the pi multiplied by r divided by 2).

Formula "C":

Then, you came in. And you stated that the formula from Dragons flight contained an error. (I assume you were referring to Formula "B" and not Formula "A", because "B" was posted at the time of your comment. I think.) You made a correction as follows:

You said: I found the glitch in Dragon Flight's equation - the sin-1 term should be subtracted, not added:

or in Excel:

=14.963*(1/2)*((A12-A1)*SQRT(1-((A12-A1)/A1)^2)-(A1*ASIN((A12-A1)/A1))-((PI()*A1)/2)) (as requested on computing board)

Notice that there is now a "minus" sign (no longer a "plus" sign) before the "r multiplied by the arc sin term". And there is still a "plus" sign (instead of a "minus" sign) on the last term (just before the pi multiplied by r divided by 2). So the last term is identical to Formula "B", but opposite of Formula "A".

So, we have three different permutations now:

So, I am thoroughly confused. So, my first question: which is correct, Formula A or B or C? And my second question: what is the correct Excel version of whichever (A, B, or C) is correct? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formula "B" is correct. I was working off the old version (Formula "A") and when I discovered that there was a sign flip, I made the wrong correction. I had tested my calculation, but not the modification I made to Dragon Flight's calculation. Sorry about the confusion. The corrected Excel would be
=14.963*(1/2)*((A12-A1)*SQRT(1-((A12-A1)/A1)^2)+(A1*ASIN((A12-A1)/A1))+((PI()*A1)/2))
You may find it useful to change some the cell references to a combination of absolute or full-column references, like:
=14.963*(1/2)*((A:A-$A$1)*SQRT(1-((A:A-$A$1)/$A$1)^2)+($A$1*ASIN((A:A-$A$1)/$A$1))+((PI()*$A$1)/2))
This will allow you to place the radius=24 in cell A1, fill the rest of column A with depth values, and paste the calculation in the adjacent cells of column B without Excel messing up the cell references.
A B
24
1 =14.963*(1/2)*((A:A-$A$1)*SQRT(1-((A:A-$A$1)/$A$1)^2)+($A$1*ASIN((A:A-$A$1)/$A$1))+((PI()*$A$1)/2))
2 =14.963*(1/2)*((A:A-$A$1)*SQRT(1-((A:A-$A$1)/$A$1)^2)+($A$1*ASIN((A:A-$A$1)/$A$1))+((PI()*$A$1)/2))
3 =14.963*(1/2)*((A:A-$A$1)*SQRT(1-((A:A-$A$1)/$A$1)^2)+($A$1*ASIN((A:A-$A$1)/$A$1))+((PI()*$A$1)/2))
12 =14.963*(1/2)*((A:A-$A$1)*SQRT(1-((A:A-$A$1)/$A$1)^2)+($A$1*ASIN((A:A-$A$1)/$A$1))+((PI()*$A$1)/2))
You may also find the following tricks helpful when filling out your spreadsheet:
  • Fill down - Paste the formula into any cell, highlight that cell and a bunch below it, and press CTRL+D. This will fill the cells "Downward" with a copy of the top cell. (CTRL-R works similarly to fill left-to right.)
  • Fill series - Type (like 0,0.25) in two cells one below the other, highlight those two cells, and then grab and drag the black square at the lower right downward. Excel will fill in the remaining values of the series.
Good luck. -- Tom N talk/contrib 01:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I will review all of this and get back to you! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formula to convert inches to gallons for oil furnace[edit]

To: User talk:Dragons flight - Hi. Can I ask you a question about that complicated formula that you discussed on the Math Help Desk Page? Please let me know. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tom Brady[edit]

Hi. I am a relatively new at Wikipedia and hope that you might be able to point me in the correct direction. Please see the Talk page for Tom Brady. Any help or thoughts will be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Jerry Stockton (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thanks. What exactly were you looking for help with? I wasn't sure what you were asking. Please let me know. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS. I piped in with a comment of mine at the Tom Brady Talk Page, also. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thought you might like to know that there is a new effort on Tom Brady's Talk Page to get Deflategate added to the lead where it should be. Jerry Stockton (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jerry Stockton: Thanks. I will add my thoughts to the discussion. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2016 US prez article.[edit]

Howdy. The recipients of the faithless electoral votes were in the bottom of the infobox. But somebody went & deleted them with discussion. I'm requesting there, that those people be restored. GoodDay (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GoodDay: Thanks. Yes! Something needs to be said somewhere in the article. Whether in the Info Box or in the narrative. Thanks for pursuing this. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's a lot of craziness going on at that articles, today. Hopefully, the article will settle down, by 20 January 2017. GoodDay (talk) 03:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GoodDay: Yes, I must have bad "timing". I only pop "in and out" of that article, willy-nilly. I was fully expecting to see the Electoral College final results there. And I was quite surprised to see nothing there. I added them. They kept getting deleted. As long as they are in the article, somewhere, somehow. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ways to improve Christopher Chubasco Wilkins[edit]

Hi, I'm Mduvekot. Joseph A. Spadaro, thanks for creating Christopher Chubasco Wilkins!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. It should be really easy to find reliable sources for this article. It took me no time at all to find this: http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Convicted-killer-says-death-penalty-is-fine-by-him-1555307.php

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Mduvekot (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mduvekot: Thanks. I will reply later. I did not create that article. I simply created the page as a re-direct. My initial reaction is that this ("new") article will get deleted. See the following similar article, that got deleted. Here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Frederick Spears. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Joseph A. Spadaro: I'm afraid you were notified because I was using the Page Curation tools that seem to be unable to distinguish between the creator of a redirect and the editor who changes a redirect to an article. I should have paid more attention to the page history. I've contacted the editor in question. My apologies. Mduvekot (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mduvekot: Thanks. Not a problem. No need to apologize. When I received your message (above), I assumed that you were the editor who changed my article from a re-direct article into a "real" (substantive) article. In other words, I thought that you were the editor UndistributedPlums. And my message above was telling you that I thought your newly created article would eventually get deleted, just as that Steven Frederick Spears article did. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 2017[edit]

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Talk:Aaron Hernandez, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Babymissfortune 14:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the message! Thanks for the warning! I certainly don't want to get blocked! I certainly want to maintain a collaborative effort here on Wikipedia! (Let's see ... did I say all of the "right things"?) All that being said ... why don't you read the thread? I asked a simple question. And you see the reply that I got. And all of that is "ok" with you, correct? LOL. What a joke. Bye. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I assume that you gave that other editor -- you know, the one who started the problem -- a warning, also. Correct? Ooops! I guess not. I just checked. They did not get a warning. Why's that? Rhetorical question. Don't bother to answer it. Thanks for your, ummm, "help"! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Joseph A. Spadaro and WP:NPA violations. SoWhy 18:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just want to say that I was one minute behind Black Kite in blocking you. You clearly haven't learnt that posting contentious, potentially libellous, material on a BLP talk page with no sources is not ok, let alone then insulting the people who ask you to back that up. Sam Walton (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cool! Thanks! When does the block end? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The block is for one month. If you're ever unsure how long a block is, there should be a banner when you look at your contributions link, and you can check by looking at your block log. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool! Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Days in Supreme Court of the United States#Membership[edit]

Hello do you think days are needed for only this year on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States Under Neil Gorsuch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I think that "days" will be fine, for when the number of days is less than one month (in other words, when his tenure is 30 days or less). After that, we can use "months" (1 month, 2 months, etc.). And, after 11 months, we can use "years". That is my opinion. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fixed it. I changed it to "days", instead of "months". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VBA[edit]

Hi Joseph. In your Refdesk question about dates you say "I never heard of this [VBA] till just now", but in fact I introduced you to it a few years ago! I mention it only because I remember you being generous in your thanks to me in helping with the question you had at the time. Best wishes, Andrew. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AndrewWTaylor: Ha ha! Yes! Thanks! I did not make the "connection" that "VBA" and "macros" were the same thing! I had always had the term "macro" in mind, and I never had the term "VBA" in mind. I did not realize they were the same thing (until after I had made that post). Funny that you remember our interaction from 2-3 years ago! Thanks again! Best, Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jonathan Demme: Deaths in 2017 entry[edit]

Look, it seems to happen we hold opposing views of editing practices a lot of the time. And each time it seems we just wind up sniping and jabbing at each other. I'm sorry for my part in that and wish we could be able to converse in future discussions without this passive aggressive manner we wind up taking on. I've said my piece on the thread and will wait for others to comment. If it's felt it should be wrote as 1991, I'll abide by the consensus. Again, sorry for my part. It's not proper conduct and nothing gets accomplished that way. Rusted AutoParts 02:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rusted AutoParts: Hi. Thanks for the message. Yes, I agree 100% with all that you said. So, I appreciate the comment (and the sentiment). And I respect your handling of the matter. I, too, acknowledge my improper conduct in the matter. And I apologize for that, also. We are probably more similar than we are dissimilar. And we probably are both rather passionate and opinionated. But, at the same time, we probably both do what we think is "right" for editing the article in question. So, thanks for your message. Again, I apologize for my behavior. Let's both make attempts to treat each other more kindly and politely in our future encounters here. Thanks for extending the olive branch. I will let the discussion about Demme take its course and abide by whatever consensus comes up there, at that Talk Page. Thanks again. Sincerely, Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rusted AutoParts: Hi (again). I added a proposed "resolution" (compromise), with my reasoning and rationale, at that Talk Page. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deaths in 2017[edit]

Hi. If you don't have the time to look out references for an entry, why assume the rest of us have that time? I was fully aware that you would revert, but I was hoping you would have taken the trouble to complete a whole entry without hanging it there minus the necessary proof. By the way, I always remove unsourced content in the first instance, as per the Wikipedia way, so I hope you understand my edit. "Rusted" has completed the details, I believe. Thanks for listening. Ref (chew)(do) 05:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Refsworldlee: Thanks. You asked why I would put an entry that is only "half complete" (i.e., without a source). The answer to that is: I would rather put the entry in and have someone else finish it (or "clean it up") than to not have the entry at all. I did not have the time to finish the entry. Still, I thought it was important enough to be included in the encyclopedia. And, I knew (or assumed) that someone would finish or clean up the entry. Plus, I placed a notice on the Talk Page to this effect. My notice said something like: "I have added this entry. Can someone please finish it or clean it up?" (or words to that effect). I will get the link to show you. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Refsworldlee: Here is the link: Talk:Deaths in 2017#February 4, 2017. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, fully aware of all this. Most articles can get away with no sources whatsoever, it seems, perhaps fair enough you'd say. However, such a subject as death is a bit different, otherwise we wouldn't have things like the "recently died" template available to insert in "just deceased" biographies and more broadly the topical "fake news" concerns doing the rounds. A sensitive matter, 'popping your clogs'. Therefore, I personally treat any of the "Deaths" pages a bit differently to any other article. There's just no scope for anyone who might be visiting to see a "claim" of death which doesn't have its accompanying source (I'd also include in that any claim of death in an individual bioraphy, which again to me must have the proof available). If I have time, I will usually add at least the necessary reference to it, to give it validation. As it happens last night though, I (like you) just didn't have the time, as I had to prepare to go out on night shift very soon after (and explains why I have been late in answering you). The only remedy I have then is to remove, and hope that when it's re-inserted, it is resplendent in the bare minimum, which to me is a reliable source (or Facebook, if we must) accompanying brief details of the recently departed. Hope you understand my rationale - I know you understand my shortage of time! I promise next time I will try to make time to complete the entry. Cheers. Ref (chew)(do) 12:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Refsworldlee: Yes, I certainly understand. Thanks! Happy editing! Best, Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

J. W. Ledford Jr. Execution[edit]

Hi there! Trust me I've been going crazy trying to find his date of birth as well, and I found a page with his date of birth on it, with this link: http://www.pap.state.ga.us/InmateTPM/ Just enter the relevant inmate's number into the GDC ID field (these can be found on Georgia's rosters of inmates, regular or on death row. Ledford's was 727017) They've removed the info for last year's executed inmates, which is kind of frustrating, but i hope this helps! UndistributedPlums (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the Ledford execution[edit]

I added a link (EDIT:two links) to the decision of the Federal Circuit court of appeals. Tell me if you find it useful. I'm just leaving this note as your question is several days old, and you might not notice any new answers. Eliyohub (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Eliyohub: Hello. Thanks for the message on my Talk Page. And thanks for the links at the Humanities Reference Desk. I had already found/read the cases that you linked. So, no, those were not the ones I was looking for. I had read a newspaper article that said that Ledford was making the argument (to the U. S. Supreme Court, I believe) in which he asserts that it is unconstitutional for a state to execute anyone younger than age 21. (In other words, criminals who committed their crimes when they were younger than age 21.) And he cites some scientific data that people under age 21 have brains not yet fully developed. They can't make good decisions, etc. And so forth. That is the case/brief that I would like to read. Did you find that one anywhere? Or, do you have any suggestions? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the supreme court simply rejected the petition, would any written decision of the reasons necessarity exist? If they gave the petition a hearing, it would. But the Supreme court gets thousands of petitions a year, reads each, and votes on it. So I'm not sure there would be any written reasons from the court's side.
As to the documents filed, if you can track down which law firm represented him, that would probably be your best bet. The lawyers can't tell you anything Ledford told them in confidence, but they can probably give you whatever's been filed with the court. I can't find that info, so I'm giving up that track. Try emailing the Office of the Georgia Attorney General, who represented Georgia before the U.S. Supreme court in the case. As I said, they're not necessarily under any obligation to provide what you seek (not completely sure on this point), but asking can't hurt. Their website is https://law.georgia.gov/
The Supreme court case it case is Ledford v. Sellers, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 2262 (2017)[15], but all my attempts to access the Lexis database have resulted in my browser freezing, and besides, you probably need a paid subscription to get it from Lexis. You can try the Georgia Attorney General's office. Eliyohub (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
EDIT: PAYDIRT, see [16], with details of the law firm which represented Ledford at the Supreme Court, including an email address. I advise writing a polite email with your request for the documents they filed for their now-deceased client with the Supreme Court. Eliyohub (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eliyohub: Thanks very much for all of the information! And for doing all of that leg work! I will contact that lawyer's office and see if they can email me a copy. I imagine that anything filed in court is a "pubic record". So I can't imagine that they'd really have any "issue" with providing it to me. They probably know that it would be available through the courts, any way. Thanks again! Have a great weekend! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sunday July 16: New England Wiknic @ Cambridge, MA[edit]

Sunday July 16, 1-5pm: New England Wiknic

You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" at John F. Kennedy Park, near Harvard Square, Cambridge, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck.

1–5pm - come by any time!
Look for us by the Wikipedia / Wikimedia banner!

We hope to see you there! --Phoebe (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Category:Salutatorians has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Salutatorians, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —swpbT 13:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The persistent inconsistent serial comma[edit]

RE: Deaths in 2017

You seem intent on using a serial comma for Patti Deutsch, and Patti Deutsch alone, despite the non-Deutsches using none. This internal inconsistency is highly dangerous and illegal.

I'd ask you to either stop doing it, do it for everyone after gaining consensus, do it for everyone without consensus, explain yourself or ignore me entirely. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:53, August 2, 2017 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: Hi. I always place a serial comma, whenever I see the need for one. I have been reading/reviewing the Patty Deutsch entry recently. And not paying much attention to other deaths. So, I placed the serial comma into the Patty Deutsch entry. When I read/review other entries, I will place in the serial comma, when needed. As I said, I have not been paying much attention to other death entries as of late. Though, I believe that I placed a few serial commas in the past few days, if I recollect. I know I placed one in the intro blurb that says: "A typical entry goes like this: name, age, nationality, cause of death, etc.". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's the thing about consistency, though. In an article where serial commas aren't used, there's never a need to use them. It just creates the need for someone else to take them back out. One here and there is just as wrong as a few here and there. If you don't feel like doing them all, best to not do any. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:25, August 2, 2017 (UTC)
I see this isn't your first time down this road. It says an admin answered something, but I don't see any conclusions. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:29, August 2, 2017 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: I just re-read (quickly) that discussion. The conclusion was to keep the serial comma. My final statement in that thread was, quote: "It's been a good week or so. According to these discussions, I will be adding in serial commas where appropriate. Thanks." Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose if the last thing someone says is a conclusion, that's a conclusion. But they're not appropriate (I linked the wrong policy above) where already predominantly not used, as they aren't in Deaths. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:39, August 3, 2017 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: First: I read the policy that you cited above as, quote, not appropriate. Nowhere in that policy does it say that the serial comma is "not appropriate". It just describes what a serial comma is, etc. Second: We already had this disussion on the Deaths Talk Page (which you yourself linked above: as, quote, isn't your first time). So, I don't see the need to have that same discussion all over again. We put it out there. There was some discussion. And the conclusion was that the serial comma was OK and that I would be placing them in. Quite frankly, there was probably quite a bit of apathy in that discussion. Meaning, it was such a minor issue, most people did not feel strongly one way or the other. Most people could not care less about an "issue" over a comma. Nonetheless, I let a sufficient period of time elapse, before coming to my conclusion. Further, you see that no one objected to my conclusion after I posted it. So, with all that being said, how does anyone (you or anyone else) unilaterally overturn that discussion? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It says "Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent". Since the article is internally inconsistent when you use the comma convention only sporadically (or spadorically), you may not use it. Nobody objected after your conclusion, but nobody agreed with it, either. Some objected before it, either to the comma or the lack of consistency. Now I am, too, and showing you a line of policy that supports my objection. Policy always overrules an apathetic discussion that people stopped having a week before it ended, simply for being policy. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:15, August 4, 2017 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: I will go in and change them all. Is that what you want to hear me say? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wanted to hear you say serial commas are fucking stupid, just adding an extra pause where there's already an "and" and an extra comma on top of the four useful ones each entry already has. But if that's not happening, this will do. Try to stay on top of them, though, now that you've started. Being consistent once or twice defeats the purpose. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:59, August 4, 2017 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: Yes, I agree with you that consistency is important. However, everyone has to be consistent. Not just me. Correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everyone already was, for the most part, under the old system. There was a natural tendency to omit the comma. Now that you've implemented a new way, it may take some time and effort to retrain them. But yes, if this is how it's meant to be, everyone will eventually conform. If objection's too strong, it wasn't meant to be. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, August 6, 2017 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: There. I changed all the August ones. I will do the July ones tomorrow. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD/H[edit]

There is no benefit to you posting any more to the RD/H thread. If you do continue to post, dial back the aggression by... a whole lot. Any further belittling comments will result in a block; I see you have quite a bit of history of prior problems in this area. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK! Thanks! Just so I am clear ... you are saying that I am banned from posting on the RD/H Board? Is that what you are saying? Clarify. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm saying I don't think you should, but I'm not banning you from it. However, any further belittling will likely result in a block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. But, everything that I said was factual. So, "belittling" is in the eye of the beholder. But, yeah, I get it. We got lots of snowflakes here who are easily, um, "offended". Playing the victim game. I get it. Nice to see that you encourage that! Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So your idea of stopping belittling and insulting someone is to call them a "snowflake"? And claim they're playing the victim game? Blocked for 3 months (since your last personal attacks and harassment block was for 1 month). --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, I didn't call anyone a snowflake. I mentioned that here in my Talk Page in a private conversation with you. No? Or, please point out where I called someone a snowflake? You and I both know that you were "itching" to block me. So, please explain for me clearly, here, the reason for my block. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And, by the way, who exactly did I call a snowflake? And when exactly? And where? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh stop. Look up two inches on your screen. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, you stop. You were itching to block me, that was clear. You did not answer my question. WHO did I call names? WHO? Specifically? I suspect you cannot answer that. Hence, you did not answer that. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I was not itching to block you; that is a baseless accusation. As I said below, I warned you to stop so that you would not be blocked. You insulted Bus stop. You did so indirectly, but that doesn't mean it's allowed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LOL. I "indirectly" insulted someone. What does that even mean? And they themselves admitted that they were not offended. But, you are telling me that they were offended? And that I offended them? Huh? How exactly does that work? Wow. Glad to see that you are the "God" of determining subjectively who is and is not offended, and if it does or does not "count". LOL. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Floquenbeam: Yeah, exactly. Crickets. No answer to my valid questions. Why is that? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not offended by anything. If it is up to me I wish the editor not to be blocked. I hope the administrator will take that into consideration. Bus stop (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bus stop: Thank you for your comments. As I mentioned above -- to that editor who was "itching" to block me (User:Floquenbeam) -- "belittling is in the eye of the beholder". In other words, if I say "xyz", one person might be offended by that (and feel "belittled"). And another person might not. It's all very subjective. I pointed out that fact (that "belittling" is in the eye of the beholder) to that editor. And, obviously, they ignored me. And felt that they "know better" about these things than I do. I guess. In any event, thanks for your comments. It actually proves my point. LOL. Unreal. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bus stop:, that's very gracious. But Joseph A. Spadaro has a long history of making personal attacks on other people - he was previously blocked 24 hours, then a week, then a month for the same thing. In this particular case, I specifically and clearly told him to stop - in order not to block him - and he still continued. I cannot unblock in the face of such clear willingness to repetitively attack others. Indeed, looking again I see that early in his career he was blocked indefinitely for personal attacks, and promised to stop as a condition for unblocking. If he requests an unblock and another admin reviews this situation, perhaps they will take your lack of offense into consideration when determining whether to unblock, whether to come up with editing restrictions as a condition, etc. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not just gracious, Floquenbeam, I genuinely feel bad. I enjoyed my discussion with Spadaro. It saddens me that bad repercussions follow on what was actually a productive discussion. Bus stop (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The editor Bus stop says that he/she was not offended. But the admin Floquenbeam concludes that Bus stop was indeed offended. And that I offended him/her. How does that work? Can someone help me understand. You can't make this stuff up. LOL. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, Floquenbeam ... since you are so "up" on my history. Can you give me the dates for those things? What were they, like 10 years ago? LOL. Unreal. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Joseph A. Spadaro (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I disagree with the above block. Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 9:55 pm, Today (UTC+2)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.


I'm not sure why the fact that this has been going on for 10 years makes it better. There's a difference between occasional low-level snark, or even occasional blow-ups, and relentless snide attacks. JAS has been doing this for years. When I warned him this time, he continued in the response to the warning. This is precisely the kind of "incivility" we should target: long-running, pointless, relentless, unstopping in the face of a warning. It requires more finesse than the typical civility police response of rudeness=block, but it isn't rational to let JAS go on forever in this vein either. That's as silly as a civility cop mentality.

If any admin believes I went to far, then unblock. But until there is some basic acknowledgement that you can't just continue insulting people in the face of a warning to stop doing so - until he at least pretends to understand that his behavior at WP:RDH was rude, belittling, uncivil, and constituted personal attacks - I won't be unblocking myself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uh. Wait a minute. Hold on. You are saying that for ten continuous years, I have been uncivil? Ten continuous years. Correct? That is what you are saying above. Am I correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No that's not what I said; you added the word "continuous", and then are outraged by the word "continuous". That's called a strawman. I do not wish to play that game. I have satisfied WP:ADMINACCT, and explained the block in detail. I'm done here. Any reviewing admin is welcome to ping me if they have questions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I notice that you don't answer questions. Valid questions at that. You said above "this has been going on for ten years". Exact quote. Did I get that quote wrong? What does that mean? To any normal human being, those words mean ... umm ... that this has been going on for ten years. What part am I not understanding? It's a valid question. As are my other questions above. I see that you don't like to answer them, though. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For what it's worth, I would read "this has been going on for ten years" to mean "this has happened repeatedly and frequently over a period of ten years." It does not mean that it has happened every day for ten years or that there weren't some times when it didn't happen, as "continuously" might suggest. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) I'm just going to leave this here: [17] General Ization Talk 22:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request admin help[edit]

I would like to object to the "block" issued in the immediately above section. How do I do so? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Try the ((unblock)) template. General Ization Talk 19:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I will try that template, after I am given my "official" reason (above). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your block is due to "continued belittling and insults after a specific warning to stop" as stated in your block log. If you wish to request an unblock, and object your block, please file an unblock request to do so. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, thanks. As I said, I am waiting for a response from the editor who blocked me. That is: User:Floquenbeam. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Joseph A. Spadaro (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I request an "unblock" due to the following reasons:

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia; and
  • the block is no longer necessary because I understand what I have been blocked for; and
  • I will not continue to cause damage or disruption; and
  • I will make useful contributions instead.

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decline reason:

You need to convince us that you understand what you've been blocked for, and that you won't continue. Rephrasing the previous decline doesn't cut it. PhilKnight (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.


This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Joseph A. Spadaro (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You need to convince us that you understand what you've been blocked for, and that you won't continue. Rephrasing the previous decline doesn't cut it. PhilKnight (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your advice! And insight! Thank you for your guidance in this "unblock" process! I really appreciate your input and your help and your guidance! Once again, thank you!

Hopefully, I can address your concerns! See below:

1. All of the allegations that were made against me by User Floquenbeam are 100% correct.

2. I was 100% incorrect to disagree with him/her.

3. My conduct was very bad and it violated Wikipedia policies.

4. Again, all of the allegations made by User Floquenbeam are 100% correct. I did not see that at the time. But, I have had a chance to review the polices. And I agree 100% with User Floquenbeam.

5. My behavior, as alleged by User Floquenbeam, was uncivil. And unprofessional. And disruptive. And many other adjectives.

6. I admit that I offended User Bus stop. This is very bad behavior. This is in violation of Wikipedia policy. This is not the way to run an encyclopedia. This is not the way to foster collegiality of relations among editors.

7. I won't continue.

Please let me know if you need further information from me! Or if you have any questions! Thank you!

Thanks!

Oh ... while I am here ... let me offer my sincere apologies:

1. To User Bus stop

2. To User Floquenbeam

3. To all others in the Wikipedia community whom I have offended, especially to all of the hard-working editors and adminsitrators who work tirelessly to produce a top-quality on-line encyclopedia

I hope that I can be forgiven!

Please let me know!

Thanks!

Oh ... sorry ... I forgot to add this component, as outlined by User

1. I understand that my behavior at WP:RDH was rude;

2. I understand that my behavior at WP:RDH was belittling;

3. I understand that my behavior at WP:RDH was uncivil; and

4. I understand that my behavior at WP:RDH constituted personal attacks.

I hope that I have not left anything out!

If I did, please forgive my omission!

And please let me know so that I can edit/amend my "unblock" request!

Thanks!

Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decline reason:

Sarcasm, while hilarious, is not a great way to appeal a block. Yunshui 雲水 09:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.


This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Joseph A. Spadaro (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The above is nor sarcastic. Why do you say that? Assume good faith. That aside, what do I need to do to "prove" that the comments are genuine/sincere and not sarcastic? Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decline reason:

Far from indicating that you understand the reason for the block and will not do the same again, pretty well everything you have said here since the block has served to indicate that you wish to contemptuously dismiss any suggestion that you should not continue to behave as before. You are not going to be unblocked by posting such nonsense, and since I am sure you know that, I can only take your posts as trolling. The only part of your block that could reasonably be open to review is that it is time-limited, in view of your long-term persistence in the same kind of thing. To prevent you from wasting further administrator time with your "Unblock requests" which are clearly not going to achieve an unblock, I shall remove talk page access for the duration of the block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

To Be Clear[edit]

My hope is that Spadaro gets unblocked soon. We got in an argument and it is not only Spadaro's fault. It takes two to tango and I played my part. I was somewhat unreasonable. Though we argued, I didn't think Spadaro was being disrespectful of me. I know I have already expressed this sentiment in a brief post above but I think it bears repeating. Of course I am not volunteering to have myself blocked and I am aware nobody has so far suggested I be blocked. I thought I should make that clear. Spadaro is a good guy, from what I have seen. Bus stop (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If not, this is a good time to re-organize his CD/DVD collection, catch up on those books he purchased but never has got around to reading, and laugh at the wilting daisies of the world. 104.169.18.4 (talk) 07:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women in Red World Contest[edit]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Proposed deletion of Murder of Pam Basu[edit]

Hello, Joseph A. Spadaro. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Murder of Pam Basu, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

  1. edit the page
  2. remove the text that looks like this: ((proposed deletion/dated...))
  3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Natureium (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Glossary of North American horse racing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Triple Crown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 25[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trinitario, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bodega (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 4[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kick the bucket, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bucket list (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alerts[edit]

Please note that these are just alerts. They don't mean that you are going to be sanctioned, they are a notice that you can be sanctioned. I know you've had alerts before but they need to be renewed every 12 months for "awareness".

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Doug Weller talk 13:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of description list; reduced semantics / accessibility[edit]

Can you please explain your intentions behind Special:Diff/849896457, which silently reverted without an edit summary my edit Special:Diff/849822691? At very least I believe that should be an unordered list, but a description list seems more semantic. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 6[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sylvia Plath, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Opprobrium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kitty Genovese called...[edit]

...she's out of you!

Seriously though, what's old is new again (again) at Talk:Deaths in 2018#Mollie Tibbetts, and you might be interested in changing, keeping or otherwise modernizing your stance on the eternal case of Notable Deaths v. Notable Dead. I promise not to make it "weird" by bringing your whereabouts one year ago tonight into cross-examination (there won't even be a cross-examination), but I think you should know that I know what you did last summer. And it's totally OK; a lot of older men feel a bit confused about what goes where in that sort of thing these days. Between you and me, the whole manual shebang turns into a chore once you realize how much quicker and fresher you can get it online. And yeah, it's technically an illegal sort of reproduction, but everyone's doing it in the privacy of their own homes. You and I just aren't ashamed to admit it.

Anyway, that was a Seinfeld reference, in case you didn't see that episode. Not sure what it means. Not calling you a jerk or anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:30, August 23, 2018 (UTC)

AfroCine: Join us for the Months of African Cinema in October![edit]

Greetings!

You are receiving this message because your username or portal was listed as a participant of a WikiProject that is related to Africa, the Carribean, Cinema or theatre.

This is to introduce you to a new Wikiproject called AfroCine. This new project is dedicated to improving the Wikipedia coverage of the history, works, people, places, events, etc, that are associated with the cinema, theatre and arts of Africa, African countries, the carribbean, and the diaspora. If you would love to be part of this or you're already contributing in this area, kindly list your name as a participant on the project page here.

Furthermore, In the months of October and November, the WikiProject is organizing a global on-wiki contest and edit-a-thon tagged: The Months of African Cinema. If you would love to join us for this exciting event, also list your username as a participant for this event here. In preparation for the contest, please do suggest relevant articles that need to be created or expanded in different countries, during this event!

If you have any questions, complaints, suggestions, etc., please reach out to me personally on my talkpage! Cheers!--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to the Months of African Cinema![edit]

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which has been dedicated to improving contents that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.

This is a global online edit-a-thon, which is happening in at least 5 language editions of Wikipedia, including the English Wikipedia! Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section, if you haven't done so already.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing Users who are able to achieve the following:

  • Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
  • Country Winners
  • Diversity winner
  • High quality contributors
  • Gender-gap fillers
  • Page improvers
  • Wikidata Translators

For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:50, 03 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 2018[edit]

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced personal info into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at David S. Cassetti, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I see you've already had problems with WP:BLP and are on some sort of restriction. Toddst1 (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Take part in a survey[edit]

Hi Joseph A. Spadaro

We're working to measure the value of Wikipedia in economic terms. We want to ask you some questions about how you value being able to edit Wikipedia.

Our survey should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. We hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, we can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.

As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Wikipedia store (e.g. Wikipedia themed t-shirts). Note that we can only reward you if you are based in the US.

Click here to access the survey: https://mit.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0xE0vVW1MclX1d3

Thanks

Avi

Researcher, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy --Avi gan (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thousand Oaks[edit]

The person who added the initial victims list can plead ignorance. We know you were aware of the active discussion because you commented in it. You are risking a WP:DE complaint at ANI by developing a section that you know lacks consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Joseph A. Spadaro. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Internal copyright violation[edit]

Please read and follow the steps at Wikipedia:Copying_text_from_other_sources#How_about_copying_from_one_Wikipedia_article_to_another? for Death of John Allen Chau--DBigXrayᗙ 17:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 28[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stuart (name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Stuart (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Chino Hills murders[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Chino Hills murders requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-KNm_BPXOM. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did I miss something?[edit]

You are a very experienced editor, so I was surprised to see your name in the list of potential copyright issues. I tagged the article for deletion but please let me know if you think I'm misunderstanding what happened.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like the overlapping material was copied from Kevin Cooper (prisoner), where it has been present since 2010. Joseph A. Spadaro, when copying within Wikipedia, you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. This also helps copyright patrollers locate the proper source for copied prose. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying within Wikipedia in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 1[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Festival di Napoli, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Biennial (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination of 2019 Sebring, Florida, shooting for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2019 Sebring, Florida, shooting is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Sebring, Florida, shooting until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you think of the title of Aurora, Illinois shooting[edit]

2600:1003:B11B:35C7:0:26:D0C8:1101 (talk) 08:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination of Mark Janus for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mark Janus is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Janus until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pages for nominees at the 91st academy awards[edit]

Okay so I'm back from a long Wikipedia break (been taking it since August, still checking on things, just not being active till now) and noticed quite a few of them need pages, some do have pages but are redirect to the nomination! (like the sound editors of Bohemiam are a redirect to the said film) Wgolf (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright problem on Testosterone enanthate[edit]

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://www.antarespharma.com/application/files/2715/3835/7488/XYOSTED_FDA_Approval_Final.pdf, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, some of the the content had to be removed and I paraphrased some. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Henry IV, Part 2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heavy Lies the Crown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even more copyright violations[edit]

In this edit you added the text:

"Clarus expects JATENZO to be available in U.S. pharmacies before the end of the year."

The source says:

"Clarus expects JATENZO to be available in U.S. pharmacies before the end of the year."

and then you changed it a bit to:

"Clarus expects Jatenzo to be available in U.S. pharmacies before the end of 2019.".

Please read WP:Close paraphrasing. I noticed you removed my previous message, but you have yet to clean up the copyright violations I mentioned.

Please make a list of the articles you've added copyrighted text to. Poveglia (talk) 05:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the Survivor guilt article mentioned previously you also added text from an article on aol.com Poveglia (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In this edit you added the text:

"Singing that is dubbed, however, does not affect the actor’s eligibility for an award unless the singing constitutes the actor’s entire performance."

The PDF you link to contains the text:

"Singing that is dubbed will not affect the performer’s eligibility unless it constitutes the entire performance. "

Another example, the PDF contains the sentence:

"The determination as to whether a role is a leading or supporting role shall be made individually by members of the branch at the time of balloting."

and your edit contains: "The distinction as to whether a particular role is a leading role or a supporting role is made individually by members of the Academy’s Actors Branch at the time of voting."

Poveglia (talk) 06:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just learned that using stuff from the US government is ok as long as you add the ((PD-notice)). That is done so the edit on the Testosterone undecanoate article is fixed now. Poveglia (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Admin help[edit]

I need the help of an admin. Please. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll ping one for you: @Diannaa:. Poveglia (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is usually recommended to actually post a request or question when using that template. Now when an admin shows up the admin doesn't know what you want and why. Poveglia (talk) 05:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seconded. I am an admin, and I have no idea what it is that you needed. Please re-add the ((adminhelp)) tag with an explanation of what you need from one of us. Thanks. –Darkwind (talk) 07:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you find an administrator, any administrator, who is willing to deal with this problem and do a contributor copyright investigation if necessary then I am happy to let them do the (dirty) work. It's not exactly fun, digging up old diffs and googling sentences. Poveglia (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you have a specific question for an administrator then by all means post a new "adminhelp" request, with a clear statement of what you want. For now, there is no way of knowing what help you want, if any, beyond what has already been given, so I am closing this request. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JamesBWatson: I never posted that "admin help" template on my Talk Page. Some other editor placed that onto my Talk Page, on his own. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joseph and I are in agreement about one thing: It would be good if a random uninvolved admin would step in here and talk to him. I listed a few copyright problems above, those can easily be fixed by an admin. Please rewrite the content a bit where there is WP:Close paraphrasing or copypasta. Please ask Joseph if this happened anywhere else and if so where and help him fix it where necessary. Thank you, and sorry for dumping this task on you. Poveglia (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Attack page[edit]

Stop icon

Please do not add content or create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Poveglia (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You might as well describe what actually happened: I made the mistake of answering your question on the helpdesk. Later when I nominated an article it turned out you had written it and you started harassing and attacking me for no other reason than that I believe we should a bit stricter about which crimes are worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. I had just found an example of close paraphrasing on the The 1619 Project so when I saw that section about copyright problems on your talkpage I loaded up a bunch of tabs with mainspace edits from around that same date. I found quite a few problematic sentences but after a while Firefox crashed and I was too bored to continue and start a full WP:CCI (which was the intention). Because you acted so weird I decided to let an admin handle it. Poveglia (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Joseph,
Editors are allowed to compile "evidence" about other editors for a limited amount of time if they are putting together a complaint or a dispute case. But then it must be deleted after it is filed. I'll give you two weeks to either file a complaint against Poveglia, if that is your intention, or drop the matter. After 9/28, this page must either be blanked by you or it will be deleted. And yes, I am an admin. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 19:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Liz: I am not sure what you are talking about. Please explain. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop it[edit]

Consider this an informal one-way interaction ban; stop harassing me, annoying me, insulting me and talking to me. You are no longer welcome on my talkpage and please don't ping me. Poveglia (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formal warning[edit]

Consider this a formal warning: if you continue infringing copyright, as Poveglia has demonstrated in the links you included on the page you provided me, you will be blocked. Most of Poveglia's claims I was able to verify to be infringements: the only exceptions were the USFDA page (it's PD-USGov, as Poveglia observed in a later note) and the AOL page (my browser wouldn't load it, so I have no opinion). You're basically claiming that Poveglia is stalking you, and while this might have begun this way (I have no opinion on that either way), the copyright issues mean that it's completely legitimate to go through your contributions looking for infringements. Copyright infringements endanger the encyclopedia more than almost anything else (incivility, vandalism, etc. have no off-wiki effects, but copyright infringements can have real-life legal consequences), so they must not be tolerated. Finally, let me remind you that if I block you for this, it will be your third indefinite block, and I will strongly oppose any request to lift it. Nyttend (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nyttend: That is your conclusion, after having read User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page98? Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correct, I've read that page and checked the diffs and external links provided. My advice is to be very careful to write things in your own words, without close paraphrasing, unless your source is an item that's in the public domain in the USA. Nyttend (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nyttend: OK, fair enough. And what about all of the rest of the "issues" presented in my Sand-Box page / complaint? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What issues did you raise, aside from the stalking issue that I addressed in my first comment, and the "attack page" issue that someone else has already addressed? Nyttend (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nyttend: So, what am I supposed to do about these copyright problems? Also, how is it a copyright "problem" if I specifically source / attribute a statement? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't demand that you do anything (WP:VOLUNTEER), but I strongly suggest that you start repairing them, either by deleting the infringing text or by replacing it with something entirely your own creation. You're confusing copyright infringement with plagiarism: infringement is the use of copyrighted content without permission, regardless of whether you attribute it properly. Fair use can be claimed on text, as with images, but the same provisions apply — the larger the amount of text, the less likely it is to be fair, and if you can convey the same meaning with your own words, it's not likely to be fair. Nyttend (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nyttend: OK. Thanks for your help. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Editor's Barnstar
Hi Joseph,

I stumbled upon your message in the Help Desk recently and have been impressed by your tireless efforts in editing the Tate murders article. An impressively well cited article! This, in spite of a recent spate of vandalism. Keep up the great and inspiring work!

As a bit of a hat tip, I corrected that lingering named reference error. The problem was a subsequent reference used the same named reference number "watson19," so it looked like that article hadn't been used elsewhere, I just corrected the second "watson19" named reference to "watson20". Hope that helps you in the future! :)

At any rate, alas, here's a barnstar for your efforts Doug Mehus (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


@Dmehus: Hello. Thanks very much for the Barnstar that you posted on my Talk Page! Much appreciated! Thanks, also, for your kind words. I also appreciate your input at the Talk Page of the Tate murders article, where I had proposed renaming the article to the Tate-LaBianca murders. Finally, thanks for fixing that reference error message. It was driving me crazy. I tried to find the source of the error, but I was unable to. It really drove me nuts. I am glad that you were able to find it and to fix it. Thanks so much! Best, Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for User Boxes[edit]

@W.carter: Hello. I saw your name listed as someone who takes requests to create User Boxes. (Way at the bottom of this page: Wikipedia:Userboxes#See also.) Are you still doing that? Are you still available to make User Boxes on request? Please let me know. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Joseph, yeah, I could probably help you out with that. What did you have in mind? Please tell me what specifications you are interested in (text, link(s), colors, image, etc.) and I'll see if it's doable. cart-Talk 17:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@W.carter: Hi. Thanks. I have a few in mind, five to be exact. They are all pretty simple, straight-forward. Nothing too fancy or involved. I just don't really know how to create them (although I am learning). And, especially, I have no idea how to deal with (find, insert, etc.) the pictures or graphics. Here are the five that I am looking to add to my User Box Page, which is located here ---> User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page-Intro-10. Please let me know if you are interested in any, all, or none ... and then I can offer more specifics about each one.
(1) This user enjoys the works of William Shakespeare.
(2) This user enjoys classic literature.
(3) This user is a Republican.
(4) This user is interested in true crime.
(5) This user is interested in the Academy Awards.
Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, I can fix them all if you like. There are already some about Shakespeare (Wikipedia:Userboxes/Media/Books#Theatrical plays) but they are sorted under 'plays' so that might not be what you are looking for. The Republican one needs to be specified if it's about the ideology in general or for the US Republican party. There are a few of these too already: Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics/Ideologies M–R or User:Ipatrol/Userboxes/United States politics, User:UBX/Republican, User:UBX/Republican2, User:UBX/Republican3, User:The Gerg/Userboxes/User Republican. If you like new ones with your exact wording, that's fine with me, go ahead and list your specs. Please keep in mind that you can not use just any image on a WP user page, but I can guide you through that and find the best ones for you since I'm also active on Commons, the image repository for WP. cart-Talk 19:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@W.carter: Hi. Thanks. I saw all of the available "Shakespeare" ones ... and I did not really like any of them. (In fact, I currently have a Shakespeare one on my current "User Box Page". Located here: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page-Intro-10.) I never saw any of those "Republican" ones. How / where did you find them? I looked and looked. I never came across the "Republican" ones that you found, listed individually on separate pages. I will review those. Maybe I will use one.
Well, for now, let's just focus on the first two requests, if we may. As a general rule ... this is what I want (in keeping with my current "User Box Page").
* a normal / standard size box ... same size as all of the other boxes on my page
* a little picture on the left side of the rectangle ( in standard size ) ... and the writing component on the right side of the rectangle ( in standard size )
* for the right side ( the written inscription ) ... normal color font (black), normal size font, normal font type ... similar to all the others on my page ... I prefer the "justification" to be "centered" (as opposed to left-justified)
* for Request #1 ... This user enjoys the works of William Shakespeare. You can use the same image from this User Box about Shakespeare (see below). The only thing I don't like about that Shakespeare User Box is the "ugly" brown background color on the right side of the rectangle. Perhaps you can change that.
* for Request #2 ... This user enjoys classic literature. You can use the same image from this User Box about Literature / Quotations (see below).
Thanks. Let me know if any questions. I will review the "Republican" boxes that you linked above. And, later, we can worry about my Request #4 and #5. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is the "Shakespeare" Box ... with the "ugly" brown background color. Keep the picture on the left. Change the wording on the right. Change the "ugly" brown background color on the right.
This user has read 31 of William Shakespeare's plays.
Here is the "Literature / Quotations" Box. Keep the picture on the left. Change the wording on the right. Change font on the right to be standard.
"Quote" – Author
I found the Republican userboxes in the Category:Political parties user templates, which I found by doing some searches using "Wikipedia:Userboxes Republican" and some similar combos. With so many users doing their own userboxes and not displaying them on the WP pages, it's a bit of jungle when looking for them. Usually, it's better to just fix new ones yourself. I'll start fixing the first two boxes you requested some time this weekend, it's getting late here now. I'll get back to you when I have something for you. First drafts can always be tweaked and once you see the them it will not be difficult for you to use them as templates to create your own boxes. Good night for now, cart-Talk 19:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@W.carter: OK. Great! Thanks for all the help! I will wait to hear from you. Thanks again! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Joseph, here are your two first boxes: User:W.carter/Userbox Shakespeare and User:W.carter/Userbox Classic literature. I borrowed the style and colors from your pages. I have left instructions on how to alter/tweak the boxes inside <!-- --> on the pages. If you open them in the edit window, you'll see everything. By copying all the text/code and tweak it, you can also create your own userboxes with these fairly simple examples. Or you can just tell me if there is anything you want changed with these two boxes. If you don't want to try creating other userboxes yourself, I will of course help you with that too. Keep in mind that the photo of the image of the Oscar on the Academy Awards page can't be used in a userbox. The picture is a non-free image since the Oscar is copyrighted. There are a few free photos at Commons Category:Academy Awards. Best, --cart-Talk 12:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@W.carter: Hello. Thanks very much! I looked at the two new User Boxes that you created ... the Shakespeare one and the Literature one. Those are great, thanks! I looked at your examples and comments within. So, as a result, I think I can now create my own User Boxes. Thanks for the quick lessons / tutorials. They were very helpful. So, as far as my other three requests ... I will try to create those Boxes myself. The process seems simple enough. I have two questions, though. (1.) The only place that I can get pictures from is ... where, exactly? What is the link for that? Also, (2.) The only thing in the computer code that I did not understand was the code that says "<include>" or "<noinclude>" (or something like that). What is that all about? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Joseph, glad you liked the new boxes. I'm always happy to help, but I have learned that Wikipedians want to learn and do things on their own if they can, hence the tutorials. Just give me a 'ping' if you stumble on something.
The place where you should look for pictures is at Wikimedia Commons. It is the main image, sound and video repository for all Wikipedias and other Wiki projects. It contains almost 57 million such files. It is totally connected to all Wikipedias (you don't need to upload the image here on English Wikipedia), you just use the file name like you are used to in articles. Most pictures on Wikipedia comes from that place and if an image is uploaded on English Wikipedia, it is sooner or later transferred to Commons so that Wikipedias in other languages can use it too. Commons is organized in categories and links to the appropriate category can usually be found on the page housing an article here. But if it's your first time searching for something in that huge "library", it might be a bit tricky. Just ask me if you need any help.
The <includeonly>(category)</includeonly> is placed around the category for the userbox so that only the userbox will be included in that category, not all the pages the userbox is displayed on. You have to write it exactly like that, with the <includeonly>(category)</includeonly> right after the double brackets "))", not on a new row or with a space in between, otherwise it will mess up the code. cart-Talk 21:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, by the way, when you use a userbox, you don't need to insert all the code. I had a look in your sandbox. The code for the userbox is on a page of its own and you only place the page title within double curly brackets (for example like this: ((User:W.carter/Userbox Shakespeare)) on the page you want it on. cart-Talk 21:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@W.carter: Hello. Thanks again! From looking at your examples (and comments / tutorials), I was able to learn the rudiments of creating a User Box. So, I created a few on my own. Very simple ones. I added them to my User Box Page (located here: User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page-Intro-10). I do have one other question. And one comment/question, in reply to your comment above. My question is: why can the picture of an Oscar be used on the Academy Awards page ... but cannot be used on a User Box? Also, you indicated that -- when I display a User Box -- I don't have to use all of the code. However, if I change something in the original code (like, let's say, the background color) ... then I do need to use all of the "new code" ... correct? If I use someone else's User Box -- without making any changes -- then I simply use the template/page link. However, if I "tweak it" (by changing the color or the precise wording, etc.), then I use the entire ("new") code. Am I doing it correctly or incorrectly? Please let me know. Thanks again for all of your help! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again Joseph! The legalese regarding what pictures can be used here and under what circumstances has to do with copyright and it is THE most tricky part I have come across on the WikiProjects. Usually, just talking about it will have editors running for the hills, but I saw on your user page that you are a lawyer, so you might understand this info.
A lot of things and art are protected by copyright in one form or another. The Oscar is one such item. Since Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, it can only host free material and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is not about to relinquish its copyright for the Oscar. However, there is a small loophole in the copyright law that the US-based English Wikipedia is using. It is called Non-free use and it bacically allows a copyrighted picture or a picture of a copyrighted item to be displayed in an English Wikipedia article about that picture or item, IF and only IF, the picture is small and a legal form is filled out by the uploader guaranteeing that the photo will not be used anywhere else. If you look at the file page for the Oscar you will see part of that legal form. I have a special program installed on my computer that displays all such picture with a double red border, so I know which ones I can use freely, without having to read the form. Since the loophole only allows for the picture to be used once and in the context of an article, it can't be used on a user page too and certainly not in a userbox which can be shared on several user pages. This loophole only exists on the English Wikipedia, the Wikipedias in other languages have to go about this in other ways.
There are other restrictions regarding these non-free images that have lead to some bizarre things here over the years. For example: Only non-free photos of dead people are allowed, so it took years and years before we were able to get a free photo for the article about North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. Another one is the light on the Eifel Tower. We are allowed to show photos of the tower itself but not of the lights on it during the night, not even under the non-free loophole. Instead we can go with something called "De minimis". In simple language that means that we can show something in a photo if it is not the main subject of the image, only a very small part of it, or if it is a simple rendition of the subject, like a silhouette. I'm Swedish, but working on the WikiProjects, has taught me more about international copyright law than I ever thought I'd know! On the Swedish article about the Academy awards, they use a de minimis photo of the Oscar since the legal loophole doesn't exist in Sweden.
On to the code for the boxes.
You are right that it is good manners not to change the code of someone else's userbox on the page for the box. You are of course free to change the two I made for you on their pages since you are the first one to "claim" these boxes. I'm glad to hear that you have managed to fix some new boxes yourself. You can of course use the whole code with your alterations on your user page, if you don't find that too bulky. However, most users would create new pages for their new versions of the userboxes (similar to the ones I made for you) under their own name space. Then they would use the template/page link. Some may even put their userboxes in the common userbox gallery in case someone else, who does not yet know how to make userboxes, might be interested. That is how the galleries have grown over the years. Popular topics have many versions of userboxes, who knows: Someone may like yours better than the existing ones. I think it would be a welcome addition if you created a userbox/page called something like User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Userbox Academy Awards for the code, since we don't have such a box yet. We don't have good versions of the other boxes you wanted either, so those could be good additions too. You have a good sense of style and I think your "new" Shakespeare box will be used by many others who, like you, found the old ones ugly and murky.
All in all: If you want too keep your userboxes private, go ahead and use the whole code on your page. If you want a smooth way of working with the new boxes, and maybe share them with others, create pages for them and use those template/page links. All the best, --cart-Talk 22:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@W.carter: Hi. Thanks again. That (above) was a very thorough and comprehensive reply. Many thanks for your attention and your insights. So, yes, I do understand about the legal issues of the copyrights with the photo's and the images. And, yes, I do understand about using (or not using) the code for User Boxes. I did have one further quick question, on the latter issue. If I want to use the name/link/template for a User Box ... instead of all of the actual code ... I have to place the code/template on a separate page (as you did with my Shakespeare and my "classic literature" requests). So, is it true that a person (like myself) can only place ONE template per page? Or can one page have several templates? In other words, let's say that I create seven new user boxes. Can I place all seven templates on one page ... or will I need seven individual and specific pages, one for each new box? (I am guessing the latter to be the case, but I want to be sure.) I see that you created two new user boxes for me -- the Shakespeare one and the classic literature one -- and you placed them on two separate Wikipedia pages. Is that how it must be done? Or could you have placed both boxes -- or, say, even ten more boxes -- on simply one (same) page? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have to place only one box per page and name the page after that box. If you were to place two or more boxes on one page, they would always show up together once you placed the page's name somewhere. So for seven boxes, you have to create seven pages. cart-Talk 23:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@W.carter: OK. Thanks. That makes sense. Thanks again for all of your help above. I think I can create my own User Boxes, at this point, thanks to all of your help / suggestions / advice. Much appreciated! Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation to discus the rule on whether to include the victims' names[edit]

Dear Joseph A. Spadaro,

I hereby invite you to discuss a possible new rule on whether or not the name of victims should be included on various articles (i.e. Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, Santa Fe High School shooting.

The discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Victims'_names_proposal_workshop

TheHoax (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TheHoax: Thanks for making me aware of this discussion. I did not know about it, until I got your message. I will pipe in with my thoughts at that link / discussion. Thanks again for making me aware. Much appreciated! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 2019[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from using talk pages such as Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. In addition, do not remove tags on talk pages. WMSR (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WMSR: Hi. Thanks. Please explain to me how my question was not appropriate for that Talk Page? And what is the correct page for me to post that question? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Joseph A. Spadaro Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for that discussion at all. Editorials, especially those pushing fringe theories, are not reliable sources. Full stop. Unless reliable sources start referring to the whistleblower as anything else, that is the language that will be used on Wikipedia. And once again, it is completely inappropriate to remove tags placed by other users from talk discussions. WMSR (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WMSR: If an editor wants to inquire as to whether or not material is appropriate to add into an article ... where do they post that question? I thought it was the article Talk Page? No? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would be the logical place, but as you may have noticed, your logical arguments about a dispute existing are highly inappropriate to your contemporary audience. Nobody knows exactly why this happens, but the cure damn sure isn't more logical argument. When you convince people you're right, you make them feel wrong, regardless of intent. When you make people feel wrong, they rationally feel like shutting you up and feeling right again. So shut up, Joe, and make everything great again. It won't mean you're wrong, just that feelings aren't compatible with facts. If both sides fight like with like, you'll all be more likely to determine an actual outcome. Until then, bewildering chaos for everyone! You know it's sad, but true. Though being true makes it funny. Funny sad news, but not fake, so be grateful. A mole leaker by any name is a whistleblower is a confidential informant, is an accuser of a powerful producer, is a boatrocker, is a drama queen, is Luciferian, is a free speech champ, is whatever we feel like making readers feel about what "those people" do. So just put on some Mike Oldfield that isn't that album and relax. It'll all be over soon... InedibleHulk (talk) 08:10, November 26, 2019 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: Yes, I agree with your comments whole-heartedly. There is none so blind as he who will not see. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Joseph A. Spadaro: Feigning ignorance isn't a good look. You know better. WMSR (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WMSR: What is that supposed to mean? I asked a legitimate question. Period. Tell me what part I am wrong about. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Joseph A. Spadaro: You are asking a question you already know the answer to in an attempt to pick a fight. Multiple people responded to your question, but you apparently weren't satisfied with the answer you received and kept pushing. I really have no desire to argue about this; I posted the template to let you know that talkpages are not forums to debate policy, and that it is inappropriate to remove tags in talk pages. WMSR (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WMSR: I have better things to do with my time than to "pick a fight" with anonymous Wikipedia editors. (Notice that I am not anonymous?) Particularly, those with an "agenda". (And, by the way, I am not in third grade. I have better / more important things to do than to "pick fights".) Mine was a perfectly legitimate question, and you know that it was. So, let's agree to disagree. You can just leave me alone now ... and we can stop wasting each other's time. Bye. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Phrasing your perfectly reasonable conclusion as a perfectly legitimate question may well have jeopardized your entire mission before you even buzzed in. No symbol in the world conjures up a cloud of uncertainty, a shadow of doubt and a whisper of whether (or not) like this provocative gesture. Give an opponent with a preexisting gut feeling of the way things have been an inch of opportunity to tell it like it is, and they'll take a mile to call it like they presume you should want to see it. A wise rock god once announced that "words have control" of mind, soul and eternal petrification, and a drunken trickster god further cemented that proclamation in simplifying The Game as "all about control (and who's gonna take it)". Next time you want to change a lyric, behold the king and nevermind these one-eyed men from the land of the blind before they have a chance to disregard your stone cold truth. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:55, November 27, 2019 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: Yes, again ... I agree! Happy Thanksgiving! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Canadian here, so that turkey sailed before the snow, but we can both whistle a grateful unchained melody on International Day for the Abolition of Slavery! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:37, December 2, 2019 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: Ahhhhhh ... so Canadians have nothing to be thankful for?!?!?!? LOL. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not in the icy darkness of late November Thursday. On earlyish October Monday, it's still nice enough to appreciate a long weekend. Same reason we celebrate our freedom on July 1, three days later is too damn humid (there might be other reasons for that, but who's counting?). InedibleHulk (talk) 08:40, December 3, 2019 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: LOL ... Yeah ... I hear ya. Happy editing! Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Xaverian High School[edit]

You wrote an article about a notable incident, That does not make the victim notable. If you think he is notable then write an article about him. Meters (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And per WP:BRD you really should have taken this to the talk page before restoring your edit. Meters (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Meters: Hi. Thanks. Yeah, I have been "snooping around" the various "Alumni sections" ... and they are all rather inconsistent (with your interpretation). I don't agree with your interpretation of the policy (i.e., that the person himself must be notable and have his own article). From what I have seen, that is not the case in many other articles (alumni sections). I will be looking into this further. In general. And, then, I will worry about that specific article (Xaverian High School) and that specific alumnus (Robert Wone). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your opinion is your opinion, but WP:ALUMNI is part of WP:WPSCH/AG, the school project's consensus on high school articles. You might want to read WP:LISTBIO and WP:SOURCELIST.
I would suggest that the next time you want to discuss content in a given article the first place to start would be on the article's talk page. And the WP:OTHER argument is not likely to get you very far if you intend to challenge the alumni list interpretation. Meters (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Meters: Yes, my opinion is my opinion. As your is yours. So, we can agree to disagree. And, as I mentioned more than once ... I am concerned about the policy in general, not just that one particular high school or its alumni. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And WP:WPSCH/AG is the school project's consensus. And WP:LISTBIO and WP:SOURCELIST are also well-established consensuses.
The help page was the wrong venue. That was the point I making. You started off with a concern about an edit on one page, but instead of discussing it with me or on the article's talk you went to the help page, which is not intended for content disputes. When you didn't get what you wanted you expanded your concern to the overall interpretation. Well, if you want do that then take it to the schools' project page, because that is who deals with high school page content. I can tell you that I am extremely doubtful that your entry would be seen as notable, We already have exceptions for notable people who do not have articles, but your entry does not make the cut. You appear to have a non-notable person who happens to have been involved in a notable event that had nothing to do with the school. That's it. WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:WTAF are useful here. Meters (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Meters: Again, you missed my point. Which I have already repeated multiple times. I was concerned with the topic, in general. Not with that specific high school or its one specific alumni. Upon further investigation and "snooping around", I saw a lot of inconsistencies ... which do not align with your interpretation of the guideline / policy. So, yes, I brought it up at that Help Page. Which is the exactly appropriate place. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the help page is actually intended for questions about how to edit Wikipedia, not for content disputes, or interpretations of project policies. If you want to contest my removal then open a discussion on the article's talk page. If you want to discuss the larger topic of inclusion criteria for alumni on high school pages then take it to the high school project pages.
Despite your claims, it's quite obvious from the timeline and the content of your first help page edit that you were initially concerned with just your attempt to add the non-notable alumni to the school page. You made absolutely no mention of any larger concerns, and you posted to the help page all of 12 minutes after your article post, 10 minutes after I undid you, and 8 minutes after I explained on your talk page.
Please don't ping me again. Meters (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Meters: Dude ... you are the one who keeps putting messages on my Talk Page ... no? So, yeah, stop "pinging me" and just leave me alone. I know how Wikipedia works. And I don't need you "telling" me what to do. If you read all of your messages above, they are each filled with imperative sentences of you "telling me" what to do. Get some bedside manner, dude. And, yeah, leave me alone and I will leave you alone. (Even though I never once initiated any contact with you. I could tell what you were like, from Day 1 ... or, rather, from Moment 1.) Bye. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions about English[edit]

Sorry I didn't respond to this. (As the dead spot in my list of contributions may suggest, I've been very busy elsewhere over the last few days.) The thread went stale and has rightly been shunted off to an archive, so I don't intend to attempt to resuscitate it.

Questions asked there about matters related to English get answers of varying quality. It's not rare for a vaguely authoritative-sounding factoid, seemingly uttered with complete confidence, to demonstrate a depressing ignorance. (If I sound too smug in my own superiority, I'll add that I can and do misunderstand questions, answer too hastily, ignore key issues, or be plain wrong. I'm always open to criticism.)

You can of course spend a lot of money amassing a collection of worthwhile books, but here are two that will get you quite a way: A Student's Introduction to English Grammar (SIEG), and Making New Words. If the former interests you, then you might also consider The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL); but this is huge and even used copies are (understandably) expensive. (I got my own by registering the title as a "want" at Abebooks and then being patient till eventually notified of the availability of a cheaper example.) Books aside, it's worth registering for English Corpora and familiarizing yourself with how it's used. (NB word categories here are as defined traditionally, not as elucidated by decades of hard thinking in linguistics and explained in SIEG and CGEL.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hoary: Hello and thanks. It's no problem for your delay in response. That is understandable. I have also been very busy, these past few days. Yes, I agree with what you say about answers on the Wikipedia Reference Desks. Some are worthwhile and valid replies. And some are just people spouting off with an air of confidence and authority. I agree. I have been here on Wikipedia for 12 or 13 years, so I have developed a "sixth sense" when interpreting Reference Desk responses. Thanks for the suggestions for book titles. I will look into them. Yes, generally speaking, I am interested in / fascinated by the "nuances" of the English language. A case in point being my question about the appropriateness of saying "six feet" and "six foot", which struck me as a bit odd, even after having used that terminology my whole life. Thanks again for the thoughtful and thorough replies. And also for the suggestions for several book titles. I will look into them. (I also visit the ABE Books website quite often.) Much appreciated. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 2019[edit]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump. I really don't want to bring this to ANI. The rules have been explained to you several times. You seem to be a perfectly competent editor outside of this one talk page, so please just stop picking fights there. WMSR (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WMSR: You and I both know that my questions were perfectly valid. And the reasons in opposition were purely POV. In your heart of hearts, you know that. You are not a stupid person. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2020[edit]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to 2020, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Arthur Rubin: Hi. Thanks. Why, what was wrong with that edit? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Things that occur automatically every 4 years are not included in year articles. If it were to be listed in 2020, it would have to be listed in 2016, 2012, ..., at least back to 1504, although 1700, 1800, and 1900 are problematic. There is a consensus that holidays are not included in year articles; Leap day is arguably even less notable. I do apologize for my tone and edit comment, however. I was also dealing with an IP who continually makes edits which I and others consider bad in year articles, but changes IP when I leave a comment on his talk page. You might check WP:YEARS for a general overview of what goes in year articles, and WT:YEARS for discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Arthur Rubin: Thanks for the insight / explanation. I rarely visit the "year" pages. I just happened to stumble upon that one earlier today. Thanks again for the explanation. However, I noticed that you said: Things that occur automatically every 4 years are not included in year articles. The first thing that came to my mind was the U.S. Presidential elections. And, if I remember correctly, that is indeed listed on the 2020 article page. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As part of a coup in 2017, national elections are included in year articles, even if the nation has only a few hundred people. The US is the only country with periodic national elections, so we're stuck with it. Before that, national elections were only in "year in country" and "year national electoral calendar", unless there was something of specific interest about the election, such as first election (under a new constitution), first election for some time, etc. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've still been fighting against adding the date by when an election must be held, for example, a new UK election would have to be held by a specific date in 2024 even if there weren't already an election scheduled for this Thursday. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Arthur Rubin: Thanks again for the info. As I said, I am unfamiliar with the "year" pages. So, your information was helpful. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Murderpedia.org[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Murderpedia.org requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Jeb3Talk at me hereWhat I've Done 19:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jebcubed: Yes, I just created the article a moment ago ... and put a "stub" template on it. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 2020[edit]

Information icon Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

@Objective3000: ... Thank for the suggestions! I've scanned your Talk Page, too ... ANI and all. You are exactly the type of Wikipedia editor I try to avoid and have nothing to do with. Thanks again! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Impeachment question on ref desk[edit]

Hi there, I took the liberty of moving your reply down to the bottom of the section so it's easier for people to see. If you don't like that go ahead and undo it. Have a good day! --47.146.63.87 (talk) 06:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@47.146.63.87: Not a problem. That's fine. Thanks for letting me know. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Academy Awards table[edit]

Do you have any consensus for this table? Personally I don't think the format is better. Hddty (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hddty: Hi. Thanks. That table has been there for a long time. Many, many months. Since July 2019. Which is nine months ... so, nearly a year. No problems as of now. Do you have consensus to remove it? Actually, I think the format is better. Which is why I did a lot of work to create it. Gives more information, rather than less. And it's sortable. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your table is there for nine months in one article, while the simpler table is used in many other Academy Awards for years; you're the one who need consensus here. Hddty (talk) 07:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hddty: We're not talking about "many other Wikipedia articles" ... that have "existed for years" ... we are talking about this one article, at the moment. (Which, I am sure, has received a great deal of traffic and viewership in the past year. Since it was the then-"current" ceremony.) And, in fact, I have already started adding these charts to the other Academy Award articles. I believe I did Ceremony #1 and Ceremony #2, if I remember correctly. I cannot do all 93 articles in one fell swoop, obviously. Each table is a lot of work. In any event ... what is it that you don't like about the chart? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I don't like about this table is: 1) Too big, as a reader myself when I found out a film is nominated I also look at the table to see whether the film got multiple nomination, if the film is not in the table then the film only got one nomination; 2) Best Picture doesn't need its own column, it already listed in "Winners and nominees" section; 3) Winner in % is unnecessary, the column Awards and Nomination is enough; 4) The alternating row color (gold-white) is broken when sorting.
@Reywas92: can you comment here because you also remove the table at 1st Academy Awards and 2nd Academy Awards. Hddty (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These tables are massive and just duplicate the material in the main Awards section, I have no idea why it needs to be there. Number: Uhhh why are the films numbered in alphabetical order? A whole column to put a single checkmark next to the BP winner: Mentioned multiple times above. A column for the other BP nominees: it's one box in the Awards list above. Awards/nomination counts: those with multiple can be more compactly summarized rather than listing every one. Won%: Why does everything need to be made into a statistic? This is not a very meaningful way to compare films and easy enough to figure out from the original multiple nominees/winners tables. The original format was much better summarizing the top films without excessively wasting space duplicating information. The colors are also unnecessary. Please do not put this in every article. Reywas92Talk 19:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 2020[edit]

Please cease your comma disruption now. I will not block you myself because I am now involved in your pointless quixotic waste of time. But it is likely, in my opinion, that another administrator will block you if you do not drop the stick. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My questions are valid. And I am asking where is the appropriate place to ask them. Is your answer "just drop the issue or be blocked"? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Drop it now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Editor's Barnstar
For your work on List of deaths due to coronavirus disease 2019. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correction at Talk:Jasper Rine[edit]

I messed with some of the alterations you just did at Talk:Jasper Rine - you had positioned a message from 2010 as a response to a message from 2011, and clearly that had not been the case. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NatGertler: Thanks. When I visited the page, the 2011 message was on top and the 2010 message was directly underneath it. (I had not looked at the dates ... I just looked at the substance of the comments themselves.) There was initially no header at all ... so that the discussion comments flowed directly after the Talk Page Template Boxes. So, I added a heading. Since the comments were directly on the same topic, I assumed that the second-appearing comment was a response to the first-appearing comment. As the dates prove, that could not have been the case. But, I also don't know why the "newer" comment was posted before (i.e., above) the "older" comment on that Talk Page. Some glitch, I guess. Thanks for the fix. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Oldest People[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

I did post on the Talk Page. Ten or eleven days ago. You didn't see that? No ... you just got a pretty "itchy finger" to come here and accuse me of edit-warring and trying to block me, though. Huh? How collegial. Nice working with you in such a collaborative way. You seem like a nice person. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Oldest Surviving[edit]

Re: List of oldest living Academy Award winners and nominees

Hi Joseph, I create the section Chronology of record holders: oldest living. There was some notes like This and I create a table with the whole ciudad. Botedance (talk) 11:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Botedance: Hi. Thanks. Wow, that must have been a lot of work! Thanks. I can't believe how much work that must have been! Thank you again. I have two questions. (1) Why is the date of October 14, 1976, in there? I can't tell for sure ... but it seems unnecessary? Do you know? Also: (2) Do you have any interest in creating a second / similar chart ... for "Chronology of Earliest Surviving Winners and Nominees" ... ? I was just curious. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, I was examining the chart more closely. I think (not sure?) there might be some mistakes with the "beginning line" and "ending line" for Charlie Chaplin ... and also the "beginning line" and "ending line" for Edith Evans ...? Can you see if those are correct? I think that's part of my question above about the October 14, 1976, date. October 14, 1976, seems to be the date that Edith Evans died. I think her row lengths should be one less (shortened "up" by one) ... but I am not sure. And I think that Charlie Chaplin's row lengths should be extended "down" by one more ... but I am not sure. What do you think? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1st january 1972 Chevallier died. it's correct, Chaplin must change it. I'm interesting in earliest surviving but a I don't have enough time. Botedance (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Botedance: Hi. Thanks. It looks like you made some corrections/edits ... and it also looks like you added in the new chart. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Botedance: Also looks like you added in columns for "Best Director". Great work! Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I used same table of winners and nominees. It's possible that in some moments there were two or more actors/directors/ nominated was alive, but I choose people who alives more. Botedance (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Botedance: Gotcha. Thanks again. Good work! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November![edit]

Greetings,

Thank you very much for participating in the Months of African Cinema global contest/edit-a-thon, and thank you for your contributions so far.

It is already the middle of the contest and a lot have been achieved already! We have been able to get over 1,500 articles created in over fifteen (15) languages! This would not have been possible without your support and we want to thank you. If you have not yet listed your name as a participant in the contest page please do so.

Please make sure to list the articles you have created or improved in the article achievements' section of the contest page, so that they can be easily tracked. To be able to claim prizes, please also ensure to list your articles on the users by articles page. We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

  • Overall winner
    • 1st - $500
    • 2nd - $200
    • 3rd - $100
  • Diversity winner - $100
  • Gender-gap filler - $100
  • Language Winners - up to $100*

We are very excited about what has been achieved so far, but your contributions are still needed to further exceed all expectations! Let’s create more articles before the end of this contest, which is this November!!!

Thank you once again for being part of this global event! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 10:30, 06 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 14[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Murder of Jesse Valencia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Model.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination of Devin Goda for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Devin Goda is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devin Goda until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

AldezD (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 6[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited To be, or not to be, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emendation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Burt Pugach[edit]

RE:Burt Pugach

Not sure if you saw it already or not, but guy finally has a reliably sourced obituary. Rusted AutoParts 00:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rusted AutoParts: ... Thanks for the notification. I had no idea that his death was finally reported. I am still puzzled as to why it took so long (several months, in fact). He was a pretty well-known and "big name", out there ... certainly in the New York area. No idea why it wasn't being reported (sooner). Thanks again for letting me know! Much appreciated. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 2021[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission, as you did at Terrence Clarke. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  —Bagumba (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination of Murder of Mario Cerciello Rega for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murder of Mario Cerciello Rega is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Mario Cerciello Rega until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 15:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Aiden Leos[edit]

Hi. I'm Barkeep49, an editor and administrator. I have recently relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Aiden Leos an article which you wrote. I know from personal experience that having an article you write nominated for deletion is upsetting. However, I would ask that you please step back from such active participation in the AfD to ensure that it does not become disruptive. If you have any questions about this please don't hesitate to ask by pinging me or leaving a question on my talk page. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sunshine[edit]

Sunshine!
Hello Joseph A. Spadaro! Interstellarity (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding ((subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine)) to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding ((User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon)). Happy editing! Interstellarity (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy first day of summer, Joseph A. Spadaro!! Interstellarity (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to the Months of African Cinema Global Contest![edit]

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project core team is happy to inform you that the Months of African Cinema Contest is happening again this year in October and November. We invite Wikipedians all over the world to join in improving content related to African cinema on Wikipedia!

Please list your username under the participants’ section of the contest page to indicate your interest in participating in this contest. The term "African" in the context of this contest, includes people of African descent from all over the world, which includes the diaspora and the Caribbean.

The following prizes would be recognized at the end of the contest:

  • Overall winner
    • 1st - $500
    • 2nd - $200
    • 3rd - $100
  • Diversity winner - $100
  • Gender-gap fillers - $100
  • Language Winners - up to $100*

Also look out for local prizes from affiliates in your countries or communities! For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. We look forward to your participation.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:20, 30th September 2021 (UTC)

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

"List of offenders scheduled to be executed in the United States in 2018" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect List of offenders scheduled to be executed in the United States in 2018. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 31#List of offenders scheduled to be executed in the United States in 2018 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Inexpiable (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Jeremiah J. Jackson" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Jeremiah J. Jackson. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 31#Jeremiah J. Jackson until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Inexpiable (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November![edit]

Greetings,

It is already past the middle of the contest and we are really excited about the Months of African Contest 2021 achievements so far! We want to extend our sincere gratitude for the time and energy you have invested. If you have not yet participated in the contest, it is not too late to do it. Please list your username as a participant on the contest’s main page.

Please remember to list the articles you have improved or created on the article achievements' section of the contest page so they can be tracked. In order to win prizes, be sure to also list your article in the users by articles. Please note that your articles must be present in both the article achievement section on the main contest page, as well as on the Users By Articles page for you to qualify for a prize.

We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

  • Overall winner
    • 1st - $500
    • 2nd - $200
    • 3rd - $100
  • Diversity winner - $100
  • Gender-gap filler - $100
  • Language Winners - up to $100*

Thank you once again for your valued participation! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notices[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Firefangledfeathers 04:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 23[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Midtown High School (comics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roger Harrington.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Killing of Aiden Leos[edit]

Information icon Hello, Joseph A. Spadaro. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Killing of Aiden Leos, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 16[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sicily, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trinacria.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May 2022[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Nina Jankowicz for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Early voting (disambiguation)[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Early voting (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
  • disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
  • is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ––FormalDude talk 04:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glamourfame.com as a reference[edit]

Hi Joseph A. Spadaro. I noticed that you used glamourfame.com as a source for biographical information in Denise D'Ascenzo.[19][20] I am unable to find any evidence or discussion indicating that it meets reliable sourcing criteria for such information. I've gone ahead and removed it. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks.--Hipal (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 5[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ingrid L. Moll, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wheaton College.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed deletion of Connecticut Insurance Law Journal[edit]

Notice

The article Connecticut Insurance Law Journal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Google search only gives library catalog entries. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Roe v. Wade into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted ((copied)) template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 05:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notice[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place ((Ds/aware)) on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Beccaynr (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 2022[edit]

Information icon Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines: "Large talk pages are difficult to read and load slowly over slow connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." – this talk page is 405.3 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a ((help me)) notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. Jax 0677 (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kathy Boudin/Brink's Robbery[edit]

Hello, Spadaro. I noticed your suggestion of adding a reference to the movie Dead Presidents on the Kathy Boudin page, and that another editor reverted/removed it. As you did not explain your reasoning, and I was not familiar with the movie, I took a look. I see that the film includes a fictionalized version of the 1981 Brink's robbery. Since making the cross-reference seemed like a good idea, although not necessarily for the Boudin page per se, I added a reference on the Brink's robbery page. I thought you might like to know. PDGPA (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Battleground behavior[edit]

Hey, JAS, your interactions with other editors at Talk:Alvin Bragg seem to be treating the editing of that article as a WP:battleground. You're a very experienced editor, so I know you must know that's not productive in a collaborative environment. Please try to assume good faith on the parts of other editors. Valereee (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want to add to Valereee's warning. Your sarcastic, confrontational, demeaning language is way out of line, and you are not complying with the Neutral point of view. You are not assuming good faith of your fellow editors. Do not act like a troll and do not grind axes. This behavior must stop. Cullen328 (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a forum[edit]

You have been reminded in the past that article talk pages are WP:NOTAFORUM, but that is how you have been treating Talk:FBI search of Mar-a-Lago exactly that way. I have reverted your comments as disruptive to constructive discussion. Please cease. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was just about to say basically the same thing as Anachronist but got an edit conflict notice. If you persist in making posts like these - [21][22][23][24] - I'll be raising your conduct at the appropriate noticeboard. If you're not here to improve articles, you shouldn't be here. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please stop re-adding your unconstructive messages per the 4 requests above. Andre🚐 03:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i might add, whether or not you're correct with your asserted ties between disparate national and global events, it really doesn't help your claims when you present them in an all-caps styled treatise.

cooler heads often prevail. thanks for helping me write a global encyclopedia. Saintstephen000 (talk)

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Merrick Garland, you may be blocked from editing. Also at Talk:Joe Biden and Talk:FBI search of Mar-a-Lago. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place ((Ds/aware)) on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 2022[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  Valereee (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ten minutes after posting this comment, this editor was notified of a discussion at ANI and stopped editing. Blocking to get this editor's attention to the discussion, which should continue. Any admin should feel free to adjust or lift the block as they feel is appropriate. Valereee (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
JAS, if you'd like to respond to the ANI discussion, you can post your responses here and someone will transfer them over. Feel free to ping me if that doesn't happen in a timely manner; I'm at an event this weekend but will try to check in at least a couple times a day. Valereee (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Community block - indefinite period of time[edit]

As per this discussion, your block has been changed to a community block. This means you can not appeal it to a single admin or UTRS, but it would have to be appealed directly to the community at either WP:AN or WP:ANI. For now, you still have access to your talk page for such appeal, and talk page access will not be removed unless you abuse that privilege. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Killing of Aiden Leos[edit]

Hello, Joseph A. Spadaro. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Killing of Aiden Leos".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 20:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your edit on Laverne & Shirley's page[edit]

Hello,

I took a look and noticed that you made an edit that showed Laverne & Shirley ranking #39 in the 1979-80 TV season. Where did you find that piece of information if you can remember? Truckonout (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Condolences[edit]

You were a good arguer. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed deletion of Early voting (disambiguation)[edit]

Notice

The article Early voting (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A disambiguation page is not required: the two entries have hatnotes to each other.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More