User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro

Archiving a talk page

I'd also suggest you might take a look at Archiving a talk page - this thing is huge :-)  Chzz  ►  16:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks! Yes, you are absolutely correct about that! I finally got around to cleaning up my Talk Page. That had been on my "back burner" for quite a while ... and I simply was never able to get to it. Thanks for the message, though. Much appreciated. As you will now see, my Talk Page has become much more manageable ... and far more "cleaned up". Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

Hiya, as you've probably seen, I've taken the liberty of adding an index to your talk page, right at the top. What I've done is, created user:Joseph A. Spadaro/index, which contains a 'bit of code' to display all your subpages; then I've transcluded that page into a 'hidden section' at the top of your talk page; just click 'show' to reveal it.

I hope you'll find it useful; I just noticed that you had a number of sandboxes, and thought that this might help your navigation. Of course, it's your talk page, so feel free to undo my change if you don't like it.

One more tip; instead of copying stuff over when replying to messages, it keeps things simpler if you just reply to them wherever they are; for example, as I have done here.

If you do reply to a message from another user on your own talk page, it's then nice to 'let them know' that they have a new message. You can use a very simple template to do this; if you go to their page, create a new section (called 'talkback' or something), and put {{talkback|Joseph A. Spadaro}}, that will produce a message on their page, like the one I'd left for you.

Hope this makes sense; if you need help etc, leave me a note here, or talk to us live.

Best wishes,  Chzz  ►  01:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films April 2009 Newsletter

The April 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Help Me

{{Adminhelp}}

I need the intervention of an administrator, please. How do I get one? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC))

Depends what you want one for; a lot of people get a bit mixed up on what admins do. They just perform actions per policy - such as banning a user etc. But for warning users, marking pages for deletion, that kind of thing - anyone can do it. What's needed here? Please answer below; doesn't need another helpme - I'll be watching this page. Alternatively - maybe quicker - talk to us live. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  01:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks. Here is the quick run-down. There is a User named Theo789. He is a brand new user, brand new to Wikipedia. Prior to today, his User Name was IP Address User 63.215.27.57. I assume that this person, being brand new, does not quite know how Wikipedia operates. There is an article that I (and others) are working on ... and this new user has also been contributing to. The article is Philip Markoff. This is the problem. Every time someone edits the article and puts in a "negative" comment (i.e., one that he does not like, one that he does not agree with, one that upsets him, one that casts the accused criminal in a bad light, etc.), this user simply deletes the statement. This happens regardless of whether or not the edit is submitted with good, valid, reliable sources. You can look at the edit history of the article page. You can also look at the Talk Page ... particularly (on the Talk Page), the section toward the bottom labeled "Commentary". I (and others) have tried to reason with, explain, reach consensus with this new user. But, from his replies, I honestly don't think that he "gets" it. And, being new to Wikipedia, that is understandable on his part. Still, I do not want all my edits being deleted willy-nilly from the article, just because this new user does not like what the edits have to say. I have tried talking / reasoning. But, this new user just keeps back at it again ... deleting all my edits and placing his own in. So, I was hoping that someone (admin?) could perhaps work with this new guy on some level, to explain / guide him. Please let me know what is the best course of action. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC))

I see; OK, please leave it with me; I'll work on it. Leave it with me for a few days, I'll keep you updated.  Chzz  ►  06:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

So ... any luck? The guy's a ticking time bomb ... won't listen to reason ... and thinks it's "his way or no way at all" ... in my opinion. I really think he's being quite unreasonable. Have you (or another) been able to intervene at all? The article in question and its talk page are growing exponentially with his silliness. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC))

Hello. I had not heard back from you. It's been a while. The situation is getting worse and worse. This guy needs an intervention sooner rather than later. Now what? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC))

(unindent) indeed; hi, I haven't forgotten; I did say it'd be a few days; I've been busy with other matters, and for that I apologise. I have started to look at the background etc, but I admit I haven't had the time to take action yet. I was intending to do something within the next few hours, but...well, other things have come up. Remember, there is no deadline. I've left the adminhelp so that, perhaps, someone else will be able to respond quicker to your query - but I assure you, I will also follow up. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  01:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there again. I've been following the developments, and I see that action has been taken to block Theo789 (talk · contribs). As there were already many people involved, and policies were explained as much as possible, I could not see any advantage in my getting involved. For now, at least, the situation has been resolved. If there are further problems, I'm sure that the many folk who have contributed to the discussions will be monitoring the situation and will take appropriate steps. If there is any more I can do to help you, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards,  Chzz  ►  00:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I suggest you take this to WP:AN/I to deal with your complaint and what may regard our biographies on living persons. Keegan^talk 05:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films May 2009 Newsletter

The May 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Help me

{{helpme}}

Let's say that I have a "succession box" such as that below. Is it possible to add different colors / shading / etc. into the box? For example ... see this article ... List of Academy Award-winning films ... that has various rows listed in blue shaded backgrounds. In that article, the blue shading comes from the use of the "computer language code" (or command or whatever it is): bgcolor="91CFF6" . Is there a way to use that similar concept in my succession box below? If so, how exactly and where exactly would I enter that color code language / command? Also ... how would I (or anyone) know that the color code bgcolor="91CFF6" stands for blue? Is there a list somewhere of what codes correspond to what colors? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

The 'code' for succession box is stored in template:succession box. That might look complicated, but don't be put off.

Like anything else, it is best to make a copy to your user area, and work on it there. I have just copied that file to User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Succession box.

The hex number used for the colours is an HTML colour code. There are many lists; I usually refer to this website to get the numbers.

I will edit the template a little, and demostrate a bit more below, soon. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  21:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at that template, if I planned to work on it, I would start again - it's deprecated and old-style code. Therefore, I have made a new template, User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Succession2. This is a simple table format, same as the original - all I've done is changed the colour.

Therefore, if I put this;

{{start box}}
{{User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Succession2
| title=  [[Capital punishment in Connecticut|Executions in Connecticut]]
| before= [[Capital punishment in Connecticut|Frank Wojculewicz]] - 1959
| after=  [[Michael Bruce Ross]] - 2005
| years=  
}}
{{User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Succession2
| title=  [[Capital punishment in the United States|Executions in the United States]]
| before= [[Capital punishment in California|James Hooton]] - California
| after=  [[List of individuals executed in New York|Henry Flakes]] - New York
| years=  
}}
{{end box}}

...it comes out like this;

I hope that this points you in the right direction. Good luck with it, and please ask if you need more help.  Chzz  ►  22:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Help me

{{helpme}}

I'd like to know if anyone can help with this issue. Thanks in advance. Below is a Chart / Table that is "hidden". If you click the word "[show]" that appears all the way over to the far right, this will change the hidden Table so that it is unhidden / viewable. My question is: Is there any way to "move" that Show Command? Can it be moved more to the left of the screen? Can it be moved to be immediately after the words This is a List of Notable Salutatorians? If so, how is this achieved? Or am I "stuck" with it being all the way over to the far, far right --- and, with so much blank white space in between --- risking its going unnoticed? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

This is a List of Notable Salutatorians

List of Notable Salutatorians
01.	Kathy Augustine	First female State Controller in Nevada	[1]
02.	Parisse Boothe	Actress (Deadwood)	[2]
03.	Ronnie Burke	Son of female serial killer Velma Barfield	[3]
04.	Jimmy Carter	39th President of the United States (1977-1981)	[4]
05.	Jacki R. Chan	Actress, model, musician, and stunt performer	[5]
06.	Daniel Chun	Comedy writer (The Simpsons)	[6]
07.	Henry Roe Cloud	First Native American to attend Yale University	[7]
08.	Rah Digga	Hip hop artist and rapper	[8]
09.	Ray Edwards	NFL football player (Minnesota Vikings)	[9]
10.	Juan Ponce Enrile	Senator of the Philippines	[10]
11.	Richard Reid Fliehr	Adoptive father of professional wrestler Ric Flair	[11]
12.	Georgie Anne Geyer	Journalist and foreign affairs columnist	[12]
13.	John Heisman	Namesake of the Heisman Trophy	[13]
14.	Todd David Hess	Commander in the United States Air Force	[14]
15.	Oliver Hill	Civil rights lawyer (Brown v. Board of Education)	[15]
16.	Gary Hirte	Eagle Scout and teenage murderer	[16]
17.	George H. Hitchings	Pharmacologist and Nobel laureate	[17]
18.	John Legend	R&B singer–songwriter	[18]
19.	Monica Lewinsky	White House intern in Bill Clinton sex scandal	[19]
20.	Holly Maddux	Murder victim of Ira Einhorn, the "Unicorn Killer"	[20]
21.	Del Martin	Partner in California's first same-sex marriage	[21]
22.	Tim McGraw	Country music singer	[22]
23.	Evan Mecham	Governor of Arizona (1987-1988)	[23]
24.	Aaron Miller	College pitcher drafted by Los Angeles Dodgers	[24]
25.	Robert S. Mulliken	Chemist and Nobel laureate	[25]
26.	Michelle Obama	First Lady of the United States	[26]
27.	Walter O'Malley	Owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers	[27]
28.	Bettie Page	Pin-up model and Playboy Playmate	[28]
29.	Linus Pauling	Chemist and Nobel laureate	[29]
30.	George Poage	First African American to win an Olympic medal	[30]
31.	James Knox Polk	11th President of the United States (1845-1849)	[31]
32.	Robin Roberts	Co-anchor of Good Morning America	[32]
33.	Eliza Schneider	Voice actress (South Park)	[33]
34.	Erich Segal	Author and screenwriter (Love Story)	[34]
35.	William Howard Taft	27th President of the United States (1909-1913)	[35]
36.	Carrie Underwood	Country pop singer and American Idol winner	[36]
37.	John Wayne	Iconic actor (Stagecoach, The Searchers)	[37]
38.	Ryan Weemer	Marine accused of war crimes in Iraq	[38]
39.	Robert Wone	Victim of a bizarre and unsolved murder	[39]
40.	Jeremiah Wright	Controversial former pastor of Barack Obama	[40]

You can use toggle=left as a parameter to move the "Show" button to the left (I changed it below to show you how it will look). Regards SoWhy 09:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a List of Notable Salutatorians

List of Notable Salutatorians
01.	Kathy Augustine	First female State Controller in Nevada	[41]
02.	Parisse Boothe	Actress (Deadwood)	[42]
03.	Ronnie Burke	Son of female serial killer Velma Barfield	[43]
04.	Jimmy Carter	39th President of the United States (1977-1981)	[44]
05.	Jacki R. Chan	Actress, model, musician, and stunt performer	[45]
06.	Daniel Chun	Comedy writer (The Simpsons)	[46]
07.	Henry Roe Cloud	First Native American to attend Yale University	[47]
08.	Rah Digga	Hip hop artist and rapper	[48]
09.	Ray Edwards	NFL football player (Minnesota Vikings)	[49]
10.	Juan Ponce Enrile	Senator of the Philippines	[50]
11.	Richard Reid Fliehr	Adoptive father of professional wrestler Ric Flair	[51]
12.	Georgie Anne Geyer	Journalist and foreign affairs columnist	[52]
13.	John Heisman	Namesake of the Heisman Trophy	[53]
14.	Todd David Hess	Commander in the United States Air Force	[54]
15.	Oliver Hill	Civil rights lawyer (Brown v. Board of Education)	[55]
16.	Gary Hirte	Eagle Scout and teenage murderer	[56]
17.	George H. Hitchings	Pharmacologist and Nobel laureate	[57]
18.	John Legend	R&B singer–songwriter	[58]
19.	Monica Lewinsky	White House intern in Bill Clinton sex scandal	[59]
20.	Holly Maddux	Murder victim of Ira Einhorn, the "Unicorn Killer"	[60]
21.	Del Martin	Partner in California's first same-sex marriage	[61]
22.	Tim McGraw	Country music singer	[62]
23.	Evan Mecham	Governor of Arizona (1987-1988)	[63]
24.	Aaron Miller	College pitcher drafted by Los Angeles Dodgers	[64]
25.	Robert S. Mulliken	Chemist and Nobel laureate	[65]
26.	Michelle Obama	First Lady of the United States	[66]
27.	Walter O'Malley	Owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers	[67]
28.	Bettie Page	Pin-up model and Playboy Playmate	[68]
29.	Linus Pauling	Chemist and Nobel laureate	[69]
30.	George Poage	First African American to win an Olympic medal	[70]
31.	James Knox Polk	11th President of the United States (1845-1849)	[71]
32.	Robin Roberts	Co-anchor of Good Morning America	[72]
33.	Eliza Schneider	Voice actress (South Park)	[73]
34.	Erich Segal	Author and screenwriter (Love Story)	[74]
35.	William Howard Taft	27th President of the United States (1909-1913)	[75]
36.	Carrie Underwood	Country pop singer and American Idol winner	[76]
37.	John Wayne	Iconic actor (Stagecoach, The Searchers)	[77]
38.	Ryan Weemer	Marine accused of war crimes in Iraq	[78]
39.	Robert Wone	Victim of a bizarre and unsolved murder	[79]
40.	Jeremiah Wright	Controversial former pastor of Barack Obama	[80]

Great! That is helpful, thank you. Now, are there any other options -- other than toggle left and toggle right -- that a user has? Or just those two? And, in particular ... is it possible to make my text come out like this?
This is a List of Notable Salutatorians [ show ]. In other words, to move the "show" command to be immediately after the title instead of immediately before the title? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

Not that I'm aware of, but you can right-align the title and [show] so they will appear next to each other on the right side of the list. Take a look at Template:Hidden begin-end/doc for more. Xenon54 (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Help me #1

{{adminhelp}}

I would like to request the help of an admin. Please advise. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

We're going to have a hard time helping you if you don't tell us what you need. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

And now you have two... --Stephen 05:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both. Yes, please help. I posted a very simple (and reasonable and legitimate) question on a Talk Page. And some other editor (an Admin?) responded to me with this: "Consider this a level 4 BLP warning: next time you post anything that asserts or assumes anyone's guilt in any crime whatsoever, you will be blocked and topic banned from this article, period." I have no idea what brought about his wrath. And I did not appreciate him biting my head off, in response to a very simple and reasonable question. Please advise. Thanks. The thread in question is here: Talk:Murder of Robert Eric Wone#Title of this article. Thank you. Please advise. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

On my reading of the discussion it would seem that there was a misinterpretation of your intent and an overreaction to your query. However, you must remain calm and decide whether you want to take this up further with the admin on his talk page, or just walk away and let the issue drop.--Stephen 06:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. (1) I agree with your assessment ... on the misinterpretation / over-reaction of that editor. (2) I am indeed calm. (3) I'd prefer some assistance / intervention in the matter. That indeed is what prompted my "help me" request. It is clear to me that I cannot engage in mutually reasoned / civil dialogue with this person. He clearly has some agenda and he does not assume good faith. I have no reason to believe that he will change in his attitude and treatment of me. Which, by the way, I'd characterize as abusive ... especially if he is an Admin. He bit off my head for absolutely no reason. And he threatened me with a "level 4 warning" ... whatever that even means? This is the very reason I sent out an "I need help" SOS to an admin. I am disinclined to have faith that my approaching him on his Talk Page will have any benefit. I am not sure why you believe it would, given the "history" of the matter? Please explain why you think so? Your alternative of "walking away and letting the issue drop" is likewise unrealistic and impractical. I am intending to do edits on that very page ... as is he, I am sure. (In fact, I see that he has the most edits by far on that page -- when reviewing the article statistics. I am sure that he thinks he "owns" the page and is territorial about it.) How is your alternative (I walk away and let his abuse issue just drop) a "solution" at all? Seems like it is just postponing the inevitable. Which is ... namely ... at some point --- it's only a matter of time --- he will burst in tirade at some misperceived sleight or violation. Basically based on the simple fact that he just doesn't like or agree with one of my edits. And then he will say "I told you, I warned you, that you had a Level 4 BLP warning!" And then he will block and ban me. It is very clear that that is the direction in which this is heading. And, again, the very reason why I requested help. Please help me understand how your two proposed alternatives address my needs? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

Walking away and letting the issue drop solely on the title of the article, not your ongoing edits to the same. And as an involved admin editing the same page he is prohibited from blocking you. --Stephen 06:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The title of the article is not my concern at all. And that "issue" (title of the article) was not why I posted the "Help Me" request. My issue --- and the reason for my Help Me request --- was to seek assistance / intervention on his (seemingly unfounded) abuse / threats / etc. That was my issue of concern ... not the article title. I am looking for an Administrator to intervene in the matter on the abuse/threats issue ... I am not seeking help on the "title of article" issue. Also ... you state ... "And as an involved admin editing the same page he is prohibited from blocking you." I am not so confident that I believe that. There are many ways to skin a cat. Perhaps he specifically is prohibited from blocking me. And, I am sure that his "back door method" is to just go and complain to some other Admin (translation: one of his buddies) who can block me. So, back to my original Help Me Request. Is it possible / if so how ... to get some assistance / intervention in this matter? Please advise. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

(outdent) Joseph, I just read through the discussion, and it appears as though the discussion has moved on without further incident; I don't see that there is anything further to intervene in. The situation seems to be a mutual misunderstanding, and the impression that I'm getting from your comments above is that you're letting this get to you more than you need to be worrying about it, and as a result you're seeing phantoms where there are none. If you truly didn't do anything wrong, then just remember to be more careful about how you word things so as to avoid further misunderstandings, and move on. I'm going to remove the help template now, as I don't feel as though any admin intervention is needed here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect ... I must say ... I am not only surprised but also disappointed by your above response and by your decision to remove my "help" tag. I needed (rather, need -- present tense) help; I asked for help; and I pursued the appropriate means to request that help (via the admin "help me" tag). Your response -- and the response of the previous admin -- was, in essence, "everything seems just fine to me ... no need for any help from us". (Or have I misunderstood, in some way?) But, in all honesty, it does seem to me like "your" goal here ("you" being the admins, collectively) is not to solve the problem ... but, rather, to avoid solving the problem. (Or, perhaps, to just "cover for" other admins?) In other words ... to simply sweep it under the rug ... to simply "get it off of your desk" ... all under the guise of "everything seems fine ... problem solved!". So, my specific questions. (1) What exactly is the purpose of the "admin help me" tag? Maybe I have misunderstood its use. (2) With regard to the editor against whom I have lodged a complaint. First, I have no idea if he is / is not an admin. I assumed he was. Is he? And, if so, does he have the "right" (if you will) to say to me -- under my specific circumstances, as indicated -- "Consider this a level 4 BLP warning: next time you post anything that asserts or assumes anyone's guilt in any crime whatsoever, you will be blocked and topic banned from this article, period."? If he is an admin, has he handled his admin role correctly or not? And if he is not an admin (i.e., just a "regular" editor) ... is he "allowed" to do that to me? In other words ... is that conduct in conforming or not in conforming with proper Wikipedia policy? My guess was "no" ... but the replies that I have gotten from my "help me" tag seem to be "yes". So, I am asking for clarity on this. (3) If this conduct is indeed in conforming with proper Wikipedia behavior, then I also have the right to treat others that way ... am I correct? (4) If it is not in conforming with policy, what exactly are the repercussions, if any, to the offender? Your quick decision to remove my help tag and indicate "problem solved here" seem to indicate no repercussions whatsoever fall upon the offending admin. Is my understanding correct or no? Again, that is, if he is an admin ... and if this conduct offends policy at all. Still, all points unclear to me ... despite your assertion that this item is resolved in your book ... and that I no longer need assistance. (5) What exactly is a "level 4 warning"? I have no idea. It seems to me, however, to be some severe repercussion to restrict my rights to edit / to block me / etc. Presumably, as some consequence to some bad behavior on my part. All guesses here, as no one wants to help me. I also assume that there are lower level (level 1, 2, 3) warnings ... that this guy simply jumped over --- and went right to level 4? Is that correct? (6) I would like to know whether or not any of my actions / behaviors / edits / etc. did, in fact, violate some policy? And whether or not they did warrant some "level 4 warning"? If so ... I would like to know exactly what my offending behaviors are/were. This is (a) to defend them; and (b) to -- at the very least -- understand them; ... and (c) to avoid repeating them in the future. Which all seem to me to be both responsible and constructive motivations on my part. Or on the part of any editor here at Wikipedia. (7) So, in light of all of the (very) legitimate concerns that I have raised above in this post, I would like to know why you think that this issue is resolved and why you think I should not be requesting help? If you are under the impression that I have answers already to all of the above questions that I have raised ... please let me know where I led you to believe that I already possess these answers. (8) You also state: "it appears as though the discussion has moved on without further incident". Since the offending editor has not replied to me and, in fact, has not at all subsequently participated in the discussion ... how can you claim that the discussion has moved on without incident? I don't understand your assertion. Please advise. (9) You also state: "The situation seems to be a mutual misunderstanding". (Emphasis added.) The word "mutual" means "both ways ... a 2-way street". What part exactly was it that I misunderstood? What exactly was my role in the "mutuality" of the misunderstanding? I actually thought that I understood him perfectly well -– rather loud and clear, in fact. But, you believe that the misunderstanding was "mutual". So, please let me know what my specific part of that mutuality is. Thanks. (10) Finally ... I think that I have valid and legitimate questions ... that deserve answers. At the very least, to assist me (and others) in the future. You have made comments to me such as these: (A) "you're letting this get to you more than you need to be worrying about it"; and (B) "you're seeing phantoms where there are none"; and (C) "be more careful about how you word things so as to avoid further misunderstandings". I think that I have raised some very valid and legitimate questions / concerns / issues. They all relate to my (and, more broadly, "our" collectively) ability to work and edit Wikipedia material collaboratively. (In other words, my concerns are indeed relevant.) And I have sought to resolve them through the proper means. I see your Comment "A" and Comment "B" as minimizing, belittling, and dismissing my legitimate concerns and questions. And I see Comment "C" as directing the blame back to me, as if I had done something wrong (which I still don't know what that "something" is). To User Hersfold, specifically: I have meant no disrespect and I am not trying to come down hard on you. In fact, I appreciate that you replied at all. In good faith, I assume that you are/were sincerely trying to help and offering your best advice. But, I guess my response here is to dig deeper into the surface and detail my concerns and that "it seems to me like the problem is all solved, Joe" is not an accurate or fair rendition or resolution. So, hopefully, a learning experience for all. If there is no help to be had ... then I can obviously resort to my own devices. It is obvious that I can deal with that editor and that article in clearly less constructive (i.e., destructive) ways. However, I chose not to take that route ... hoping / expecting that the constructive approach was better for all. But, let me know if I am wrong. Please let me know whether or not there is anyone here that can assist me in my questions ... or if I am barking up the wrong tree, expecting help from any admins on these issues. Thanks for your time and attention. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

Help me #2

{{adminhelp}}

Well, well, well. Just as predicted ... I just now (Wednesday, June 24, 2009, at 5:18 PM EST) received the following message: "You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia. You can still read pages, but you cannot edit, change, or create them. Editing from Joseph A. Spadaro (your account, IP address, or IP address range) has been disabled by Jclemens for the following reason(s): BLP violations on Talk:Robert Eric Wone. Please do not unblock without consulting me first. This block has been set to expire: indefinite." Please see the "Help Me" posts immediately above this one for more details. Please advise. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

I've glanced at your post above (several times) but never read past 4 or 5 lines. To be honest, I'm not sure most people will really care to read a block of text that large. You might wanna see WP:TLDR. I sympathize with your desire to be very meticulous with regards to questioning and explaining things above, but sometimes less text is more :-) As to your block, you should read what the user below this thread wrote. BLP issues are very strict around here, as we don't want any potentially libelous text. See Wikipedia:Appealing a block for more info on blocking, requesting an unblock, etc. Killiondude (talk) 08:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I fear, however, that you missed the point entirely. The user in the thread below is exactly the problem. A problem -- by the way -- that I tried my best to avert. To no avail. I guess because, as you say, the admins are unwilling to read a long post. On second thought, however, I am not quite sure that I understand your comments above. You claim that people will not expend the 5 minutes that it takes to read my prior post. That's confusing to me because ... those very same people will expend countless minutes / hours (anything greater than 5 minutes will suffice to make my point) ... in reading and posting notices all over the place about having me blocked. A notice here, a notice there, a message on this ANI thread, a message on that BLP thread, etc. So, I don't follow your point. Why would someone be willing to take umpteen minutes to read and post all that other stuff ... yet not be willing to take 5 minutes to read the post in question? Makes no sense, huh? Well, I know the answer. People will do what they want to do ... and find any and all sorts of excuses to avoid doing what they don't want to do. It is neither the length nor the time commitment that is the real issue here. If so, your comment contradicts the behavior of these very same people -- about this very same issue -- on all those other threads, trying to justify my block, etc. So, I have to disagree with your assessment. But, thank you for your reply, nonetheless. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC))

Additionally, can you stop using the adminhelp template? At this point, you have 2 options; request an unblock (use the unblock template), or remain blocked. I'm not sure I see a point in you continuing to use the adminhelp template. Killiondude (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your post. The point in my continuing to use the admin help template is rather simple. That is, namely, to request some help from a willing admin. As you have noted previously, I had posted a somewhat lengthy post (above) ... within which are several questions / issues that I am (still) seeking to resolve. Your apparent belief is that all of the issues raised within my (lengthy) post can be resolved by requesting an unblock. I do not see how requesting an unblock will address all of the issues that I have raised. And, as such, I shall have to disagree with your apparent beliefs. Nonetheless, in your belief, you have affirmatively and unilaterally decided to remove my "help me" tags. So, I will assume that your subjective belief (that I no longer need help) essentially trumps my subjective belief (that, in fact, I do need help). So, I guess that's the way that Wikipedia works. If someone else (for example, you) subjectively believe that I do not need help, then I do not need help --- independent of the fact that my subjective belief is that I do need help. That seems, to me, a rather odd way to run things. But, if that is how Wikipedia operates, then so be it. So, for the record ... I do disagree with your comments -- and I do object to the fact that you affirmatively and unilaterally removed my "help me" tags. Nonetheless, I would like to thank you for your input and your assistance. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

Help me #3

{{adminhelp}}

I would like to request the assistance of an admin. Not even five minutes ago, I was made aware of an issue ... as such, I would like to address this issue as soon as possible. If my understanding is correct, an editor has accused me of violating Wikipedia policy ... or, at least, of engaging in conduct that very nearly does so. I would like to resolve this issue, and I am requesting admin assistance. The pertinent communication is the dialogue between User Netsnipe and myself ... that is found below on this page in the section header entitled "Blocked". This specific post of mine has absolutely nothing to do with any policy violations lodged against me by user Jclemens. Rather, this specific post of mine is entirely limited in scope to the accusations of policy violations (or very nearly so) lodged against me by User Netsnipe. Please advise. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

What assistance do you need, specifically? There seems to be a dialog continuing below; please feel free to continue it to clarify his concerns. Thanks. Kuru ^talk 15:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this issue has been resolved. Thank you for your help. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC))

Blocked follow up

As I explained below, all you have to do to be unblocked is to credibly explain that you understand that you were wrong and you won't do it again. The rightness or wrongness of your actions isn't particularly under discussion--your reaction and willingness to change are what's keeping you blocked at this point. I'm not expecting you to genuflect, but rather to acknowledge that it's against Wikipedia policy to defame living people in the way that you did on the talk page. Again, blocks are to prevent harm, not to punish. The alternative, arguing your innocence, is complicated by several factors. It's always possible you'll be heard, believed, and someone will override my judgment, but there are several reasons I don't believe it likely. Jclemens (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your post. Also, thank you for providing me with this opportunity. If I understand your post correctly, you have offered me the opportunity for me "to credibly explain that [I] understand that [I was] wrong and [I] won't do it again ... [and] to acknowledge that it's against Wikipedia policy to defame living people in the way that [I] did on the talk page". I respectfully decline your offer. Nonetheless, thank you for the opportunity. Respectfully submitted, Joseph A. Spadaro. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

That's your right, but absent an explicit agreement to follow BLP in the future, I don't anticipate any admin unblocking you, turning an indef block (lasting until such time as you acknowledge and agree to BLP) into a de facto ban. That's a regreattably severe outcome, but BLP is non-negotiable. Jclemens (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to be blocked and aren't willing to accept allegations that your previous Talk page comments are a violation of BLP, then I would strongly urge you to consider following the guide for Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and appeal the block, or the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedures and possibly attempt to contact arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org for assistance if you believe the block is unjustified, or try to work out another deal with the blocking admin. I don't like seeing Wikipedians with a long contribution history banned over one alleged offense that they don't seem to have been properly and civilly warned about prior to the offense. Please don't take out your frustrations on the Wikipedia community by just ceasing all positive contribution. --Mysidia (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate both your comments and your support. I also appreciate your input and feedback in the other relevant threads over at the ANI Board. Thank you. Also, yes, I am fully intending on pursuing this matter ... and that process is "in the works" as we speak. Thanks again for your posts. Much appreciated. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC))

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

You are now blocked for BLP violations--specifically, for accusing Price, Ward, and Zaborsky of killing Wone. Couching such accusations as "it's my understanding that..." or placing them on the talk page are not excuses for accusing living people of homicide.

Your unblock is contingent upon your attesting that you understand Wikipedia's BLP policy and will refrain from such actions in the future.

Contra the advice you received above, BLP issues are not subject to the general cautions against involved administrator action.

Please spend more time reading WP:BLP and related than writing a rebuttal here: your denial that any problem existed is what earned you this block, since blocks are not punitive, but exist to prevent harm. By indicating that you believed you were right, you indicated an unwillingness to cease such defamatory behavior on Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

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:

To Whom It May Concern: Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to contest my block. I appreciate the opportunity afforded me. As suggested, I shall review the pertinent Wikipedia links that are relevant to this matter. After having done so, I shall compose an appropriate response and forward it through the correct mechanisms. In the interim, I respectfully request – and fully expect – that the status quo be maintained. Thank you once again. Respectfully submitted, Joseph A. Spadaro, June 27, 2009.

Decline reason:

Super. Please don't use this template again until you are ready to request an actual unblock. Kuru ^talk 13:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

---

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'd also like to point out that your request to maintain the status quo of articles that you were involved in editing comes awfully close to violating our Wikipedia:Ownership of articles policy. --  Netsnipe   ►  13:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your post. Your post, in fact, has caused me some grave concern. First ... where did you see a request from me "to maintain the status quo of articles that [I was] involved in editing"? I do not recall posting such a request, and, in fact, I have never made such a request. Therefore, I would like to resolve that issue as soon as possible. Second ... you have stated that my conduct "comes awfully close to violating our Wikipedia:Ownership of articles policy". Please clarify this statement for me, as well. I am unaware of what conduct you are referring to, and I would like to resolve this issue as soon as possible, also. If, in fact, I am engaging in conduct that violates Wikipedia policy, I would like the opportunity to be made aware of what that conduct is, so that I may be able to address and remediate such. Please advise. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

When you wrote "I respectfully request – and fully expect – that the status quo be maintained.", I assumed that you were referring to the Robert Eric Wone editing dispute that you're currently involved in and asking that the article not be edited by anyone else until you were unblocked. So to clarify, it's strongly frowned upon within the Wikipedia community for anyone to claim their viewpoint is the ONLY valid one and to ignore all attempts to reach a consensus. However, I do now see that the "status quo" you were referring to could instead have been in relation to your current state of being unable to edit Wikipedia -- if so, consider my pointer to WP:OWN to be friendly advice (rather than a direct warning). --  Netsnipe  ►  14:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

Thank you for your post. Yes, your first interpretation was incorrect ... and your second was indeed correct. Thanks again for the friendly advice. Much appreciated. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC))

Help me #4

{{helpme}}

I would like to know whether or not the following information is available somewhere within Wikipedia and, if so, where exactly I would find it:

• (A) the date on which I became a Wikipedia editor;
• (B) the total number of my edits and the total number of different articles edited by me;
• (C) a summarized list of my contributions (e.g., how many edits to which specific articles); and
• (D) given the name of a specific User, whether or not that particular User is an Admin and, if so, for how long has that User been an Admin.

Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC))

A, B and C are available here.

D is here. The actual data of RfA closure and promotion is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/username Jclemens (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Or you can look at User Rights such as at [81] to give the date that they acquired admin rights (replace X with the user of your choice). --Stephen 04:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films June 2009 Newsletter

The June 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films July 2009 Newsletter

The July 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2009 Newsletter

The August 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILM September Election Voting

The September 2009 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next six months; members can still nominate themselves if interested. Please vote here by September 28! This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2009 Newsletter

The September 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS October Newsletter

The October 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. The newsletter includes details on the current membership roll call to readd your name from the inactive list to the active list. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of firsts

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of firsts. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of firsts. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Unblock invitation

Per discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive593#User:Joseph_Spadaro, you are welcome to request an unblock of this account. The technical violation of WP:SOCK has been judged to not require additional blocking action; you are welcome to resume working from this username, while being cautioned to follow SOCK and BLP in future edits. Jclemens (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Unblock Request

{{unblock}}

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:

Hello. I would like to request that my account be unblocked. Here (below) are some relevant links for the reviewing administrator to read and consider. Here is a quick synopsis of the situation. On the Talk Page of an article, I stated: "It is my understanding that [certain individuals] had committed a murder." (That was my understanding after having read many articles on the topic. And I was seeking clarification on a Talk Page about this matter.) I will re-iterate that this comment was made by me on a Talk Page, not within an article. An editor (JClemens) asserted that this statement of my understanding (whether my understanding was erroneous or not) was a violation of BLP. I sought assistance from other editors on my Talk Page several times, with regard to this issue, to no avail. The editor JClemens unilaterally blocked me from editing the article in question, and he blocked me from editing Wikipedia altogether. The editor JClemens sought some input of others on Administrator Notice Boards. Some of the other editors disagreed with the block. Some of the other editors had a different interpretation of the BLP policy than did JClemens. In other words, it was an issue/policy about which reasonable minds could differ and different editors might (and indeed did) have different opinions. Many of these other editors did not see my conduct as a just cause for blocking. The editor (JClemens) unilaterally indicated on my Talk Page that his interpretation of the BLP policy was the correct one, and that I was not allowed to differ in my interpretation of the policy (even though several other editors had done so). The blocking editor (JClemens) asserted that I needed to agree with his interpretation in order to be unblocked. Please advise. Thanks. JAS (64.252.1.135 (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC))

Decline reason:

It is true that some editors have expressed the views that the BLP policy applies only to articles. However, this is not a reasonable interpretation, either by reading of the relevant Wikipedia policy, by an intelligent common sense view of what is reasonable, or by the law. As far as Wikipedia policy is concerned, the very first sentence of the BLP ploicy is "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page". As far as both intelligent common sense and the law are concerned, if someone publishes a false claim that I committed a crime and I consider taking legal action, neither I nor my lawyer is likely to smile and say "oh, it's alright after all: the page containing the false accusation had the word "talk" at the top of it, so it doesn't count as defamation". As for the notion that it is alright to make potentially defamatory statements as long as you prefix them with "it's my understanding", there is likewise no basis either in law or in common sense for the distinction. For me to say "I think you did so and so" and for me to say "you did so and so" are merely different forms of words with the same content: they both convey the fact that my opinion is that you did so an so. To publicly make a comment indicating a belief that someone is guilty of a crime without substantiation is unacceptable anywhere, with or without hedging with "this is my opinion" type wording. Nevertheless, had you accepted that you had made a mistake you either would not have been blocked or would subsequently have been unblocked. However, as long as you indicate that you still view it as acceptable to make unsubstantiated accusations of criminality there can be no guarantee that you will not do so again. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

That was my understanding at the time ... and, in fact, I was ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION of my understanding on the Talk Page. These hyper-sensitive editors are starting off with the presumption that I was trying to defame people and simply couching the defamation in words such as "it is my understanding". When, in fact, it was indeed my understanding of the situation, and I was attempting (on a Talk Page) to get that understanding clarified. The editor's are pre-supposing my intentions and ascribing nefarious and defamatory intention to a completely innocent and innocuous situation. It's akin to saying "It's my understanding that water freezes at 50 degrees, not 32 degrees" ... it's a simple statement of how one understands a certain situation. They may be right; they may be wrong. Their understanding may be right; it may be wrong. This has nothing to do with defamation. The only defamatory motive is that being injected into this otherwise innocent and innocuous situation by hypersensitive, litigious-conscious editors. Can someone with an open mind please review this issue? Thanks. (64.252.1.135 (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC))

Furthermore, this is an issue about which several editors and administrators have differing opinions. So, it's not like it's a "well established" and a "crystal clear" issue. This seems like more of a gray area. If administrators themselves can differ in their opinion on this issue, how is some lowly editor like me supposed to know the final "rule" on the policy? And why would editor JClemen's interpretation and opinion "trump" that of some other editor / administrator who happens to disagree with his interpretation? On an issue such as this (gray area; open to interpretation; reasonable minds may differ) ... it seems a bit heavy-handed at the least, and unreasonable, to invoke a permanent block or ban. Please advise. Thanks. (64.252.1.135 (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC))

The block has never been "permanent"--its lifting is contingent on you agreeing not to engage in such behavior in the future. A couple of different administrators have now touched this in the past day, and neither has seen the gray area that you believe exists. I'm waiting to unblock you, since the only duration on this block is essentially "until the user agrees to not do that again". Even when you were socking to avoid this block, you didn't repeat the behavior, so any assertion on your part that you won't do it again has good credibility. Note that you're expected to put the reason for unblock within the {{unblock}} itself, so it appears that your latest request has been removed without action. I'm watching this page, so if you need any help in formulating an unblock request, post here and I'll respond as soon as I see it. Jclemens (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I won't do it again! (64.252.1.135 (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC))

Thanks! You have now been unblocked. Jclemens (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Relevant Links:

• User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro#Blocked
• Title of this article
• User:Joseph_A._Spadaro
• User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro#Help me #1
• User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro#Help me #2
• User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro#Help me #3
• User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro#Blocked follow up

Additionally, there's the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive593#User:Joseph_Spadaro, which was linked above when it was fresh. You don't have to agree with me to be unblocked, you just have to agree never to do anything similar again. Your intransigence on this point is what's kept you blocked this entire time, and led to your secondary account being blocked for socking. Jclemens (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Note further that your block does not prohibit you from editing your own talk page, such as to put this unblock request together. I would encourage you to log in and verify that you are able to still access this account; the IP edit unblock request might confuse other administrators reviewing the unblock request. While I will respond promptly if I see an appropriate request, I'd hate for you to have to wait around additionally because I was offline. Jclemens (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Help Me - October 18, 2010

{{helpme}}

Sorting a table

I would like to know if it is possible to do what I am trying to do in the chart given below as an example. Is it possible to make this into a sortable table, so that each column can be sorted? In other words, I would like the table to be able to be sorted by the person's name as well as by their age. The problem seems to stem from using the "multi-column" (colspan) command, which somehow screws up the sorting features. I recognize that I can "undo" the multi-column spanning ... and create a Table with seven columns (superlative, name, age, name, age, name, age) ... but that would not make a particularly aesthetic or effective chart (i.e., it would be hard to read and understand). Does anyone know of a way to fix this issue, so that it can sort the way I would like? Or is there any "back door method" that can achieve this? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC))

Yes - it's definitely possible and it's actually not too difficult. See here for details.  7  07:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I checked that link out ... but I did not see how that addressed my problem. In fact, what I read there seems to be a direct contradiction to your above post. At that link, it says: "Do not have elements spanning several columns; instead, again, repeat the content on each row, in a short form." So, what am I missing? How is it possible to get what I want ... and what is the "not too difficult" solution? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC))

I don't see a way to do it, but you might be able to use something like what I've done below as a start. The biggest problem I see with your request is that you want to sort by a column with no header of its own; I don't see how you could do that. You need to have a header cell to sort by.  Frank  |  talk  17:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: Questions that are "difficult" (like this one), should probably not use the {{helpme}} tag, but rather asked at the help desk or a village pump. Killiondude (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Superlative	Overall	Actor	Actress

Category	Name	Age	Name	Age	Name	Age
Oldest Nominee	Gloria Stuart	87	Hal Holbrook	82	Gloria Stuart	87
Oldest Winner	Jessica Tandy	80	George Burns	80	Jessica Tandy	80
Youngest Winner	Tatum O'Neal	10	Timothy Hutton	20	Tatum O'Neal	10
Youngest Nominee	Justin Henry	8	Justin Henry	8	Tatum O'Neal	10

(←) Apologies - I may have underestimated how "not too difficult" this was. The best kludge that I can come up with involves slapping a fake header table on the top and changing the positioning on the second table and hiding some borders. An example is below. This displays well (fairly) on my screen at 1200px wide, but I am not a table expert and I can clearly see that the alignment of the two tables gets messed up as you resize your screen downward. As suggested above, someone at the helpdesk or the village pump who is an expert in table parameters may be able to get this to stay aligned during a resize.

Example with two tables:

Youngest Nominee Superlative	Overall	Actor	Actress

Oldest Nominee	Gloria Stuart	Age 87	Hal Holbrook	Age 82	Gloria Stuart	Age 87
Oldest Winner	Jessica Tandy	Age 80	George Burns	Age 80	Jessica Tandy	Age 80
Youngest Winner	Tatum O'Neal	Age 10	Timothy Hutton	Age 20	Tatum O'Neal	Age 10
Youngest Nominee	Justin Henry	Age 8	Justin Henry	Age 8	Tatum O'Neal	Age 10

Did this ever work - or not what you were looking for?  7  04:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Quite some time ago (October 18, 2010), you provided me with some help on my Talk Page. The issue was about my trying to sort a Wikipedia Table by combining two tables to appear as if they were only one table. I have put that project on my "back burner" for now, as I have become preoccupied with other matters. But, I wanted to thank you for your time and assistance. And I wanted to thank you for replying to my Help request. If I have further questions in the future (when I tackle that issue once again), I may be in touch. Thanks for all of your help. Much appreciated. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC))

Real life winners

Okay I think this should be a new page on Wikipedia for this, and this is what I have so far:

Okay now, I was just wondering if someone can provide a list of people who won for real people. As you may notice, every year since 1998 someone has won for playing one. (And I do remember reading that Bullock was I believe the 13th person to win for playing a real person who was alive at the time) Kamkek (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, this is who I have so far:

Best actor: Forest Whitaker for The Last King of Scotland,Robert Deniro for Raging Bull, Philip Seymore Hoffman for Capote, Jamie Foxx for Ray, Geoffrey Rush for Shine, Sean Penn for Milk), Daniel Day Lewis for My Left Foot, Adrien Brody for The Pianist, F. Murray Abraham for Amadeus, Ben Kingsley for Gandhi, George C. Scott for Patton, Gene Hackman for The French Connection, Paul Scofield for A Man for All Seasons, Yul Brynner for The King and I, James Cagney for Yankee Doodle Dandy, Gary Cooper for Sergeant York, Paul Muni for The Story of Louis Pasteur, Charles Laughton for The Private Life of Henry VIII, George Arliss for Disraeli and Jeremy Irons for Reversal of Fortune

Best actress: Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side, Reese Witherspoon for Walk the Line, Helen Mirren for The Queen, Marion Cotillard for La Vie En Rose, Charlize Theron for Monster, Nicole Kidman for The Hours, Julia Roberts for Erin Brockovich, Hillary Swank for Boys Don't Cry, Susan Sarandon for Dead Men Walking, Jodie Foster for The Accused, Sissy Spacek for Coal Miner's Daughter, Katharine Hepburn for The Lion in Winter, Anne Bancroft for The Miracle Worker), Susan Hayward for I Want to Live!, Joanne Woodward for The Three Faces of Eve, Ingrid Bergman for Anastasia, Jennifer Jones for The Song of Bernadette, Luise Rainer for The Great Ziegfeld

Best supporting actor: Chris Cooper for Adaptation., Jim Broadbent for Iris, Martin Landau for Ed Wood, Haing S. Ngor for The Killing Fields, Jason Robards for Julia, Jason Robards for All the President's Men, Peter Ustinov for Spartacus, Anthony Quinn for Lust for Life, Anthony Quinn for Viva Zapata!, Walter Brennan for The Westerner and Joseph Schildkraut for The Life of Emile Zola

Best supporting actress:

Cate Blanchett for The Aviator, Jennifer Connelly for A Beautiful Mind, Marcia Gay Harden for Pollock, Judi Dench for Shakespeare in Love, Angelina Jolie for Girl, Interrupted, Brenda Fricker for My Left Foot, Maureen Stapleton for Reds, Mary Steenburgen for Melvin and Howard, Vanessa Redgrave for Julia, Estelle Parsons for Bonnie and Clyde, Patty Duke for The Miracle Worker, Shelly Winters for The Diary of Anne Frank and Alice Brady for In Old Chicago

In all honesty, this make a good page on Wikipedia instead of just a section on here.

And yeah I didn't do them in any order, though I eventully went in reverse order by years to double check to see if I missed anyone.

And yeah sometimes the film was a true story but had non true characters (Bridge on River Kwaii, 12 O'Clock High, ect.)

Kamkek (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

So do you know of any others to start a page? Thanks

Kamkek (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. (1) Did you see the Oscar charts that I added to your Talk Page? They are related to the earliest/oldest Oscar winners and nominees.

(2) Did you see this page: Talk:Academy Award for Best Actor#Non-fictional roles ...? It lists the non-fictional roles (real people) for Best Actor.

(3) Some of your idea are good ... but some do not deserve/warrant a separate brand-new page. And, if the page were created, it might get deleted. So, I'd hate to see all that work go to waste. As far as a page for Oscar winners/nominees playing non-fictional roles ... I can see that going either way. There are strong arguments (A) that it can have its own page (like many of the other Oscar-related pages) ... but there are also strong arguments that it (B) should just be a separate section in the Best Actor article (or whichever). If I were to be asked, I would vote for "A" ... a separate article ... where we can list all the awards on one page (Actor, Actress, etc.) ... rather than split them up between the four different acting articles.

(4) As far as looking for someone to create these pages ... I have 2 suggestions. (1) Post a note on the Talk Page of, say, Best Actor (or whatever page). (2) If you scan the Academy Award pages, you will see a lot of the same editors who contribute to -- and are interested in -- Academy Award information. I'd post a note on their Talk Pages, seeking any interest. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

Hey sorry I didn't get the message since it didn't go to me but to you. Anyway, yeah I just saw that, does look like I missed some people. (Hey I didn't know Iris had real people until I looked it up!) Anyway, maybe just mention it on the main pages of the awards. BTW there was a guy editing some nasty stuff on the 1st Academy Awards, I reverted his edits, is there a way to report him? Clue Bot got him earlier before me but this was later. Kamkek (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks. Yes, I think it might be best for now to include it on the main page of the award ... and not create a separate article. As far as reporting a guy for vandalism ... yes, I am sure that there is a way to do that. I don't know the exact procedure, however, as I have never done that. Whenever you need help or have a question, you can type this on your Talk Page: {{helpme}}. If you type that on your Talk Page, along with your question, other editors will get the "help needed" message and will reply to you on your Talk Page. I hope that's helpful. To use that tag, you need to type the words "helpme" (without using the quotation marks) ... but you need to also type in the opening and closing "{{" and "}}" symbols. In other words, type this: {{helpme}} How do I report an editor who keeps vandalizing the Academy Award article? (or something to that effect) I hope this helps. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2011 March 19#Calculating one variable from six others

To - StuRat (talk). Hello. I wanted to thank you for all of your help with my questions on the Math Help Desk (about the formulas for metabolism and body age, etc., that you were able to figure out from the body measurement variables). I very much appreciate all the time and effort you put into that; I also appreciate your taking the time to explain to me all of the steps so clearly. I am going to review all of your math explanations in more detail. I may get back to you with some minor follow-up questions, if that's OK. In the meanwhile, though, I wanted to express my appreciation. Many thanks! Your insight was invaluable ... and exactly what I was looking for. Thank you! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

You're welcome. Glad I could help. StuRat (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a permalink, BTW: [82]. StuRat (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd like to ask you a follow-up question to this issue, if I may. First of all, thanks for all your help so far. Second of all, thanks also for congratulating me on the weight loss. I had to laugh at that because, in the year 2010, I actually lost 30 pounds or so. This data is only from the start of the new year in 2011 ... so the weight loss of 5 pounds or so is only a drop in the bucket, in my mind. Thanks for the congrats, though. Third of all, my follow-up question is this. I essentially understand most of what you stated throughout the thread. However, I am confused as to where did you come up with the actual decimal point results for some of the data? For example, if the Visceral Fat Level (VFL) in my chart was listed at "8" ... how did you determine its more exact / precise value of 7.66850? You did this with all of the VFL numbers, and I was confused as to how you derived the exact decimal point results. When given a rounded result, how did you arrive at the non-rounded exact value (to 5 decimal places) of that data point? Were these just trial-and-error "guesses" until you arrived at the exact / correct result? Or was there some more precise mathematics involved that led you to the correct non-rounded values? If you don't mind, would you please explain this to me at my Talk Page, when and if you have the time to do so. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

It is essentially trial-and-error, yes. That said, the "transition points" (the top and bottom and where the rounded numbers change), are the places most likely to cause trouble. In the body age calculations, we even had one spot where the rounded ages varied by 2, from 39 to 41, so I started trying to make those numbers work, then tested my results to see if they would work at the other transitions, too. BTW, I would caution against calling my numbers an exact solution. Perhaps "one possible solution consistent with the data provided" would be better. Additional data might mean that the formulas and values would need to be revised (hopefully only slightly). Here's the data in question:

Body Age (rounded)↓   Body Age (not rounded)↓ 
-------------------   ----------------------- 
    41                   40.9                 
    41                   40.6                  
    39                   39.4                 
    39                   39.3                 
    39                   38.6                 
    38                   37.9                  
    38                   37.8                 
    38                   37.7                  
    38                   37.7                  
    37                   36.9                  
    37                   36.9 

StuRat (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)