Jump to content

User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RexxS (talk | contribs) at 21:35, 8 November 2012 (→‎Threaded discussion: rather stuck with the software). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Joseph A. Spadaro

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Hello, my friend

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]

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]
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]

Thanks

The Original Barnstar
You're a gentleman, and a scholar, Sir. Thank you for helping out, when I asked.  Chzz  ►  02:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Bible

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]

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]

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]

Was my words helpful on the Bible? MacOfJesus (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[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]

Help me

{{adminhelp}}

I need an administrator for help. Please advise. Thanks! Please see the following page: Deaths in 2011. Also, please see the following two Talk Page sections: Talk:Deaths in 2011#Stupidity and Talk:Deaths in 2011#Images. Also, please see the edits / reverts of the following user: B-Machine (talk · contribs). Can some administrator intervene, as this user is ignoring consensus and engaging in edit wars? I am not sure, administratively, how such matters are handled. Please advise. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The Administer to help, as I found him very helpful is: User:OlEnglish. Find his talk page and at the end leave a message. Leave this whole message at the end of his talk page. I know he will not mind. MacOfJesus (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[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]
If you like I'll leave a note on his talk page and direct him to your page and difficulty! MacOfJesus (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please do! Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I've done that. OLEnglish spelt: (OlEnglish) welcomed me a year-and-half ago and has been a big help ever since! MacOfJesus (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great ... thank you! I will wait to hear from him! Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Hey :) Looks like that user has been told about it, and I'll keep an eye on his edits for a while :) [stwalkerster|talk] 23:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:OlEnglish, has received the talk on his page and even though on leave will look into it. Hope it works out. MacOfJesus (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question about foreign films

To: User talk:Erik. Hello. Are you the head of the Wikipedia Film Projects? If so, I have a question for you. If not, do you know who is? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Erik's currently on a WikiBreak right now. If you have a general question, you could consider dropping a line at WT:FILM or consider asking one of the project's members who work on foreign films. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Table of contents

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]

Again the one to ask is user:OlEnglish on his talk page. MacOfJesus (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[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]
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]
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]
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]

As You Like It

I have raised this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shakespeare#Dramatis personæ for "Characters". --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[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]

Christina Marie Riggs

To: User talk:Angeldeb82. Hello. I was just wondering why you feel that Christina Marie Riggs's death date is uncertain or unclear? The official web site for the State of Arkansas lists the execution date as May 2, 2000. This is the link to their website ([1]). Other sources also list May 2. Why do you think that it might be May 3? Is there something that I am missing? Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Well, NCADP's website said it was May 3, so did the Death Penalty Information Center, and so did the newspaper on the Google Website (the top corner of the newspaper said "Tuesday, May 2, 2000", while the article on her said she was to be executed "tomorrow" (i.e., May 3)). They have to be right when they said "May 3". --Angeldeb82 (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks! But, I disagree with your statement that "they have to be right". The best source we have is the State of Arkansas Department of Prisons — the government agency that actually carried out the execution. How could they be wrong? Now, they may have a typo in their official website, but that's unlikely. They are a credible source for their own official actions ... and, in fact, they are the original source ... and, thus, the best source. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I read all of your sources. The first two sources are probably just copying off of each other. (The wording was an exact replication ... and I think that those two organizations are actually the same group?) So, if there was an error in one report, it would simply carry over into the other. The third source (newspaper article) seems odd, though. I will call the State of Arkansas Prison Department and/or Attorney General ... and see what they can tell me. I can only assume that someone in the State government there must have some official knowledge about this ... especially considering that it was such an important event. I will let you know what I find out. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Information gathered

  • Department of Correction
  • Death: May 2, 2000
  • Birth: September 2, 1971
  • Add Birth / Death to Talk Page
  • Contact Clark County Prosecutor to correct errors on web site

To do

Blank lines on talk pages

Please don't insert blank lines on talk pages as you did here; (a) it makes comparison of versions more difficult (see the diff at the top) and (b) it bloats the generated HTML by terminating all the <dl> and <dd> tags and starting a fresh set. Consider this wikicode: 

Text line 1
:Text line 2
::Text line 3
:::Text line 4

The generated HTML is as follows: 

<p>Text line 1</p>
<dl>
<dd>Text line 2
<dl>
<dd>Text line 3
<dl>
<dd>Text line 4</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>

- there are three <dl>...</dl> structures, and three <dd>...</dd>, in a single nest. Now consider this, which has blank lines: 

Text line 1

:Text line 2

::Text line 3

:::Text line 4

The generated HTML is as follows: 

<p>Text line 1</p>
<dl>
<dd>Text line 2</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd>
<dl>
<dd>Text line 3</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd>
<dl>
<dd>
<dl>
<dd>Text line 4</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>

- there are six <dl>...</dl> structures, and six <dd>...</dd>, in three nests (containing 1, 2, 3 respectively). --Redrose64 (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the suggestion. However, I am not at all familiar with technical computer code. So, I barely understood anything that you stated, above. Please try to explain this to me, in layman's terms, so that I can understand what the issue is and what the concern is. What is the effect of inserting blank lines? That is, what are the practical effects and negative consequences (not the computer code changes)? I really did not understand any of that computer code above. That's all Greek to me. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
(a) it makes comparison of versions more difficult (see the diff at the top) - if you look at the change that you made, near the top there are yellow and green blocks containing black (unchanged) or red (changed) text. This bit is known as a "diff", short for "difference", see Help:Diff. When somebody changes a page, the diff attempts to show just what the change was. In the green blocks, I can easily see that you added the paragraph beginning "OK, great" because there is no corresponding paragraph in the yellow blocks. But the paragraphs beginning "Active users without a user page" and "List of active users" occur on both sides, so I need to check them word by word to see what changes were made; and I find that the only changes were the insertion of two blank lines, also the insertion of a single space at the start of each paragraph. It could be considered that the insertion of these blank lines and spaces, minor though they are, violate the WP:TPO guideline.
(b) it bloats the generated HTML by terminating all the <dl> and <dd> tags and starting a fresh set. - HTML is the means by which all Web pages are transmitted; it looks like a computer programming language, but it isn't. (To see what it looks like, go to any web page, and in your browser, select the "View page source" option. The method for doing this varies: in Internet Explorer, you right-click on the page and select "View Page Source"; in Mozilla Firefox under Windows, you right-click on the page and select "View Page Source"). It's a mixture of easily-readable text and cryptic stuff; but the cryptic stuff is mostly enclosed by pairs of angle brackets <> (mathematical less-than and greater-than symbols). This cryptic stuff is the markup; a system of instructions that tell the browser how to display the text which follows the > symbols. Different actions are specified by the first few letters after the <, this is called the tag.
Two types of tag are <dl>, which starts a particular type of list, and <dd> which is an entry within that list. The end of the entry is given by </dd>, and the end of the list is given by </dl>. Clearly where there are several related entries which make up a list, you only need one list.
The series of one or more colons at the start of a line is the wiki markup for such lists and their entries; all lists start after the previous blank line, so by putting a blank line into the middle of a list, you are forcing the current list to be finished off, and a fresh list to be started. This makes the page bigger than it needs to be, hence the term "bloat".
An analogy might be with a CD booklet. You could have all the song titles as a list on one page; or you could put each title on a separate page. Clearly using a separate page uses more paper than putting them all on one page. Putting in a blank line is like starting a new page.
There is actually a guideline on this, at WP:TOPPOST - "Whitespace is not necessary if your post is indented with colons; simply starting another line with the same indentation level will have an appropriate gap in the output. Whitespace is also not necessary between any lines within an indented or bulleted list, and actually increases the complexity of the generated HTML code, which can have accessibility implications." (my emphasis) --Redrose64 (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Date pages

Hi. Please don't change the formatting of the date pages as you have done at April 7. The format, including spacing, is dictated by the template for the date pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year/Template. Your edits will create a lot of work for someone to go back and fix. Also, please consider using the show preview button when making changes rather than making dozens of small changes consecutively. Thanks. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

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]

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]
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]

Help Me

{{helpme}}

Regarding this article: Food Rules! The Stuff You Munch, Its Crunch, Its Punch, and Why You Sometimes Lose Your Lunch. Can someone please italicize the name/title of the article? I have tried a million things, and nothing seems to work. You can check the edit history of that article, to see what I have tried. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Also, in this article: Food Rules: An Eater's Manual ... what makes the title become italics? I did not see anything in the edit box that would render an italics title? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Template:Italic_title Add {{Italic title}} to the top of the page. Cheers, User:Ocaasi c 00:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was one of the many things that I tried. It did not work. Other suggestions? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Done. The documentation on {{italic title}} has a number of suggestions for when it does not work directly—the third one was successful. Note that the DISPLAYTITLE code I used does not work if it's relocated above the infobox, and I think many editors' natural instinct will be to move it there!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Italics

I noticed that someone who knows the issues added italic title here, and that may answer your prev question. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help me

{{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]

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

Just because someone is evil doesn't mean we have to accuse him of everey crime imaginable

I find it hard to believe that you cannot understand the difference between a political scandal like Abscam or the Iran-Contra affair and a sex scandal involving a politician. But rather than respond to your taunts with my opinion of you, I will simply remind you to remain objective and civil. I happen to think that Weiner has long been exactly what he has recently been shown to be. But that doesn't require me to use language non-objectively to attack him as if proving his evility was more important than using concepts properly. As I said, you are quite free to add any referenced material you like about how the matter is becoming politically scandalous. In the meantime, enough with the name calling already. μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Request

hello. Since you seem interested in the Weiner scandal article, I thought you should know that editor "Kenatipo" made a couple of edits, that seem a bit POV, and he seems to be acting as an apologist for Breitbart. Saying that it was unbeknownst to him, and that it was NOT "leaked" to the media. Yes, we know that Breitbart CLAIMS it was without his permission, but do we know that for sure? Also, even so, it definitely was leaked to Opie and Anthony by Breitbart, in that specific sense. I see a lot of blatant POV with Ketipo's latest edits. I was tempted to simply revert them, on that basis, but I wasn't sure if I should. I'd like your take on it. Please check out his edits. I doubt you'd disagree with me regarding their nature. Thanks. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Anthony Weiner sexting scandal

Please take this as a 3RR revert warning, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help me

{{adminhelp}}

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]

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]
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]

Friendly reminder

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]

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]
Hi Joseph, I am writing here instead of creating a new Weinergate section. I have some concerns about this edit [3] 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]

AN/I

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]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Weiner sexting scandal

{{adminhelp}}

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]

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]
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]

Question

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]

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]

Dispute resolution requested

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]

As a follow-up, I have gone to this webpage [4] 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]
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]

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

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

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]

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]

Anthony Bate

Anthony Bate wasn't in the recent 'Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy' film. He was in the BBC TV adaptation from 1979 playing Oliver Lacon. This adaptation is described in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy not in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (film). Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry, my bad. I was wondering why it kept getting reverted. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Mone

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]

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]
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]
I have answered there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited: Ada Lovelace, STEM women edit-a-thon at Harvard

U.S. Ada Lovelace Day 2012 edit-a-thon, Harvard University - You are invited!
Now in its fourth year, Ada Lovelace Day is an international celebration of women in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM), and related fields. Participants from around New England are invited to gather together at Harvard Law School to edit and create Wikipedia entries on women who have made significant contributions to the STEM fields.
Register to attend or sign up to participate remotely - visit this page to do either.
00:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Please stop inserting line breaks between comments in threaded discussion. Every time you do that, it begins a new definition list and makes it really unpleasant for anyone using a screen reader. If you want to see what I mean examine the source code in your browser from Byford Dolphin before and after I removed the line breaks. --RexxS (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks. But, I don't understand what you mean. First, lots of people insert line breaks when responding to a post above their post. Don't they? (For example, I just did it here above, when I replied to you.) Second, I viewed that link that you posted here, but I saw no difference at all: the material on the left side of the screen looked exactly like the material on the right side. So, I was not sure what I was supposed to be looking at. Please clarify. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, not every visitor is able to see as you can. Many visually-impaired readers make use of a screen reader such as JAWS. Here's the html that the section Talk:Byford Dolphin #Split proposal generated as you left it:
<p>The accident is so different from the actual specifications for the Byford Dolphin, and so notable on its own, that it should have its own page. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding <a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Signatures" title="Wikipedia:Signatures">unsigned</a> comment added by <a href="/wiki/User:Whoop_whoop_pull_up" title="User:Whoop whoop pull up">Whoop whoop pull up</a> (<a href="/wiki/User_talk:Whoop_whoop_pull_up" title="User talk:Whoop whoop pull up">talk</a> • <a href="/wiki/Special:Contributions/Whoop_whoop_pull_up" title="Special:Contributions/Whoop whoop pull up">contribs</a>) 00:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)</span></small></p>
<dl>
<dd>It already does have its own page: this one. The accident is most of what makes <i>Byford Dolphin</i> notable and removing it would make this parent article an non-notable stub. If you think anyone is likely to use or search for <a href="/w/index.php?title=Byford_Dolphin_decompression&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Byford Dolphin decompression (page does not exist)">Byford Dolphin decompression</a>, then a redirect to the section would be appropriate. The only sensible reason for splitting an article such as this into subtopics is when it becomes too large – and it's a long way short of that. --<a href="/wiki/User:RexxS" title="">RexxS</a> (<a href="/wiki/User_talk:RexxS" title="User talk:RexxS">talk</a>) 03:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd>
<dl>
<dd><i>Oppose</i> - Without the accident, who would care? --<a href="/wiki/User:Gene_Hobbs" title="">Gene Hobbs</a> (<a href="/wiki/User_talk:Gene_Hobbs" title="">talk</a>) 05:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd>
<dl>
<dd>
<dl>
<dd>Ah, thanks. I'l remove the <code>{{<a href="/wiki/Template:Split" title="">split</a>}}</code> template from this page. --<a href="/wiki/User:Whoop_whoop_pull_up" title="">Whoop whoop pull up</a> <sup><a href="/wiki/User_talk:Whoop_whoop_pull_up" title="">Bitching Betty</a> | <a href="/wiki/Special:Contributions/Whoop_whoop_pull_up" title="Special:Contributions/Whoop whoop pull up">Averted crashes</a></sup> 11:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd>
<dl>
<dd>
<dl>
<dd>
<dl>
<dd>Done. --<a href="/wiki/User:Whoop_whoop_pull_up" title="">Whoop whoop pull up</a> <sup><a href="/wiki/User_talk:Whoop_whoop_pull_up" title="">Bitching Betty</a> | <a href="/wiki/Special:Contributions/Whoop_whoop_pull_up" title="">Averted crashes</a></sup> 11:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>
and here's the same html after I removed the line breaks:
<p>The accident is so different from the actual specifications for the Byford Dolphin, and so notable on its own, that it should have its own page. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding <a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Signatures" title="Wikipedia:Signatures">unsigned</a> comment added by <a href="/wiki/User:Whoop_whoop_pull_up" title="User:Whoop whoop pull up">Whoop whoop pull up</a> (<a href="/wiki/User_talk:Whoop_whoop_pull_up" title="User talk:Whoop whoop pull up">talk</a> • <a href="/wiki/Special:Contributions/Whoop_whoop_pull_up" title="Special:Contributions/Whoop whoop pull up">contribs</a>) 00:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)</span></small></p>
<dl>
<dd>It already does have its own page: this one. The accident is most of what makes <i>Byford Dolphin</i> notable and removing it would make this parent article an non-notable stub. If you think anyone is likely to use or search for <a href="/w/index.php?title=Byford_Dolphin_decompression&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Byford Dolphin decompression (page does not exist)">Byford Dolphin decompression</a>, then a redirect to the section would be appropriate. The only sensible reason for splitting an article such as this into subtopics is when it becomes too large – and it's a long way short of that. --<a href="/wiki/User:RexxS" title="User:RexxS">RexxS</a> (<a href="/wiki/User_talk:RexxS" title="User talk:RexxS">talk</a>) 03:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
<dl>
<dd><i>Oppose</i> - Without the accident, who would care? --<a href="/wiki/User:Gene_Hobbs" title="User:Gene Hobbs">Gene Hobbs</a> (<a href="/wiki/User_talk:Gene_Hobbs" title="User talk:Gene Hobbs">talk</a>) 05:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
<dl>
<dd>Ah, thanks. I'l remove the <code>{{<a href="/wiki/Template:Split" title="Template:Split">split</a>}}</code> template from this page. --<a href="/wiki/User:Whoop_whoop_pull_up" title="User:Whoop whoop pull up">Whoop whoop pull up</a> <sup><a href="/wiki/User_talk:Whoop_whoop_pull_up" title="">Bitching Betty</a> | <a href="/wiki/Special:Contributions/Whoop_whoop_pull_up" title="Special:Contributions/Whoop whoop pull up">Averted crashes</a></sup> 11:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
<dl>
<dd>Done. --<a href="/wiki/User:Whoop_whoop_pull_up" title="">Whoop whoop pull up</a> <sup><a href="/wiki/User_talk:Whoop_whoop_pull_up" title="User talk:Whoop whoop pull up">Bitching Betty</a> | <a href="/wiki/Special:Contributions/Whoop_whoop_pull_up" title="Special:Contributions/Whoop whoop pull up">Averted crashes</a></sup> 11:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>
In there first case, each comment starts a new series of definition lists to create the indents, so by the time the user with the screen reader reaches the fifth comment, they hear "definition list one item", "definition", "definition list one item", "definition", "definition list one item", "definition", "definition list one item", "definition", (that's four times) before they hear the "Done" comment. Without the line break, they hear "definition list one item", "definition", ... just once before each comment (which is quite reasonable to delineate each different comment). Can you imagine how annoying that must be for any user of a screen reader if we get, say, 10 levels of indents in a thread? Does that now sufficiently explain the problem that you've been creating for visually-impaired editors? --RexxS (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for the explanation. But, I honestly don't actually understand. Is not it pretty common to include a blank line, when responding to a Talk Page post? I can't imagine that I am the only one who does it? When I responded to you just now, I left a blank (white space) line between your post and my reply post. I always do that. Is that what we are talking about ... or something else altogether? I am totally confused. Please let me know at my Talk Page. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you don't understand, but I am unable to make it any clearer than this:
  • If you put a blank line in between posts in a threaded discussion, you make it very unpleasant for visually-impaired readers who use a screen reader.
It's not common because editors who have the problem they cause for others explained to them usually avoid doing it afterwards.
That is what we are talking about, and I'm asking you to stop doing it. In particular, I'd like you to stop making edits where the only thing you do is introduce this problem.
P.S. Never refactor other peoples' comments at another user's talk page. Thanks. --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Truth be told, I still don't understand the problem. Millions of people all over Wikipedia place a blank line when they are responding to other posts. So, I am not sure why my miniscule number of edits here and there is an issue. I just selected a random Talk Page ... namely, the Talk Page for the article "Soap". See here: Talk:Soap. I looked at all of the entries on that Talk Page. Virtually all of them have a blank line inserted between different replies. So, once again, I am not sure what the problem is. And, since this happens all over Wikipedia (by millions of other editors, with millions of other edits), I am not sure why my miniscule number of edits (in the grand picture of the entire Wikipedia site) has become an issue at all. Please explain. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you don't understand. Lots of Wikipedia pages cause problems for disabled readers, and lots of uninformed editors contribute to that, but that doesn't make it right, does it? This is what a screen reader user hears when they encounter the last comment you made here: "definition list one item, definition, definition list one item, definition, definition list one item, definition, definition list one item, definition, definition list one item, definition, definition list one item, definition, Truth be told ...". Is that really what you want to inflict on blind visitors? --RexxS (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. So, are you saying that an editor's typing one blank line of white space (i.e., hitting the Enter key only once between entries) creates six of those phrases being repeated ("definition list one item, definition")? Am I understanding that correctly? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am saying that in the case above your typing one blank line of white space (i.e., hitting the Enter key only once between entries) creates six of those phrases being repeated ("definition list one item, definition"). You are now indeed understanding that correctly at last. But it's not sinking in, of course, because the blank line you inserted above creates "definition list one item, definition, definition list one item, definition, definition list one item, definition, definition list one item, definition, definition list one item, definition, definition list one item, definition, definition list one item, definition, definition list one item, definition, Thanks. So, are you saying ...". To save you from asking, that's ONE blank line of yours and EIGHT lots of "definition list one item, definition". Have you spotted a pattern yet? --RexxS (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thanks. Well, I am not trying to give you a hard time. Nor am I trying to make life (Wikipedia life, at least) any harder on blind readers. However, that being said ... it really seems to me like the problem is with the computer software (or whatever), and not with me. I mean ... cripes ... why on earth would "they" (the computer programmers) insert 6 or 8 or 10 of those phrases per one blank line? That seems to be the real issue, no? Not my typing in a random blank line here or there ... amidst millions of other editors doing exactly the same thing. Why can't they fix the "real" problem (i.e., the computer software that injects 6, 8, or 10 repetitions of that phrase per every one blank line typed by me or by any other editor)? I would assume that I (me, personally) am merely one drop in a huge bucket ...no? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And, by the way, does this problem happen with any and every blank line typed in Wikipedia? Or just when a blank line precedes a comment that contains a (various) number of colons to signify indentations? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's only when the blank line precedes the commas that produce indentation. In the old days we didn't have a simple mechanism in html for producing consistent indents, and the "definition list" markup was used to indent paragraphs (that's the <dl>...</dl> and <dd>...</dd> above). The blank line forces the software to finish the previous list and start a new list, so the result is that it unindents X times and then indents again X+1 times. If you don't have the blank line, then the previous list continues (with just one extra level of indent). That's the software we have and what we work with. As you say, you're just one drop, but unfortunately the bucket of inaccessibility has been filled one drip at a time. --RexxS (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joseph_A._Spadaro&oldid=522068574"