User talk:TheLastAmigo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello TheLastAmigo! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Artaxiad 05:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Academy Award for Best Picture[edit]

To: User talk:TheLastAmigo

From: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro

Re: Academy Award for Best Picture

Hi. We keep reverting one another's edits on the Best Picture / Academy Award articles. The Broadway Melody of 1936 is not a sequel to any other film, as far as I know. Do you have different information? Please let me know. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 04:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

Hey, Broadway Melody of 1936 is the sequel to The Broadway Melody, which won best picture in 1929. MGM actually made three sequels to The Broadway Melody: Broadway Melody of 1936 (1935), Broadway Melody of 1938 (1937), and Broadway Melody of 1940 (1940). Only Broadway Melody of 1936 was nominated for Best Picture. While none of the sequels had any characters that crossed over, they were all basically remakes/rip-offs of each other, shared the same titles, were made by the same producers, and were released by the same studio. Hope that clears it up for you. TheLastAmigo 05:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the prompt response. I agree with all that you have said. However, that does not make the 1936 film a sequel of the 1929 film. It is simply, as you said, another film by the same producer, by the same studio, with a similar title. That's all. A sequel, as defined by Wikipedia -- or by the film industry, in general -- is when the second film is an extension of the story / plot from the first film. Things like The Godfather Parts 1, 2, 3 ... or The Lord of the Rings Parts 1, 2, 3. Etc. Things like that. That is, story/plot 3 derives from story/plot 2, which derives from story/plot 1. A film that is simply produced by the same producer and released by the same studio -- with no story, character, plot connection -- does not constitute a "sequel" -- as that term is generally understood in the film community. That would be tantamount to, say, calling The Passion of the Christ a sequel to Braveheart, simply because they were both produced by the same man and released by the same studio (for example, hypothetically). Thus, with the correct and appropriate use of the word "sequel", it is my information that The Bells of St. Mary's is the first sequel to be nominated for Best Picture. I have other sources that agree with this assessment. Your thoughts? Please let me know. Thanks. I would appreciate your input on this. Please reply at my Talk Page: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro 17:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC))
I basically agree with all of your points, but there have been sequels to films that didn't continue the stories or have any of the same characters from previous films. Case in point: the Bing Crosby/Bob Hope film Road to Singapore (1940) was followed by five sequels, but none of them used any of the same characters or continued any of the stories from previous films. The same goes for all of the films starring the Marx Brothers, the Little Tramp, and George A. Romero's Dead Series; they are all considered sequels to previous films, but they are sequels in theme only. The same could be said about Broadway Melody of 1936. It was meant by the producers to be a follow-up to the original The Broadway Melody; it used the same themes, story elements, and title (they could have just as easily called it The Broadway Melody 2), even if it didn't use any of the same characters or continue the story of the previous film. In fact, Wikipedia says the following about sequels: "A sequel is a work of fiction in literature, film, and other creative works that is produced after a completed work, and is set in the same "universe", but at a later time. It usually continues elements of the original story, often with the same characters and settings, although this is not always the case." By this definition, Broadway Melody of 1936 could be defined as a sequel to the earlier film. Another example of this would be The Lion in Winter, in which Peter O'Toole reprises his role of King Henry II from a previous film, Becket. Letters from Iwo Jima could be considered the sequel to Flags of our Fathers because Clint Eastwood meant for it to be viewed as an extension of an earlier work that he released three months prior. On the flip side, however, even though it uses the same characters, The Silence of the Lambs could probably not be viewed as the sequel to Manhunter because none of the cast (with the exception of Frankie Faizon, who plays different characters), production staff, and studio were the same.
The Passion of the Christ could not have been a sequel to Braveheart because the only link between the two films was Mel Gibson's involvement as director. With the possible exception that both Jesus and William Wallace were publically executed, they are not thematically similar. Additionally, The Passion was not meant to be viewed as a follow-up to Braveheart (and, by the way, they weren't released by the same studio. The Passion was released by Newmarket Films and Braveheart was released by Paramount Pictures). That would be akin to saying that E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial was the sequel to Jaws because Steven Spielberg was the director and were both released by Universal. I'm sure that you were aware that I wasn't making this argument and I frankly don't understand why you were implying that I was. Thoughts? Please reply at my Talk Page: User talk:TheLastAmigo TheLastAmigo 15:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have finally found the time to reply to the above. Sorry that it took so long. Thanks for your reply. I see what you are saying, and you see what I am saying. So, let me ask you this. There seem to be two "different types" of sequels. One, where the story line and plot continue ... for example, Rocky 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. Two, where there are these other more tenuous connections, but not necessarily a continuation of the story line and plot ... for example, the examples that you cite ... Broadway Melody, etc. Do you know of any different type of wording or semantics that would differentiate Type 1 sequels from Type 2 sequels? Essentially, some wording that would make this correct: The Bells of St. Mary's is the first __________ sequel to be nominated for Best Picture. (Fill in the blank.) Thanks. Please reply at My Talk Page. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners[edit]

To: User talk:TheLastAmigo

From: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro

Re: Talk:List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners#Adding actors

Hello. Thanks for your thorough and prompt reply to my question about Best Picture Academy Award nominees that were sequels. (See User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro#Academy Award for Best Picture.) I will read your response thoroughly before I reply back to you on that issue. Thanks again. Coincidentally, however -- another question just surfaced for me. And, I was surprised to see the coincidence that I should direct this, my second question, to you -- of all Wikipedians. I noticed that you had made quite a few changes to the following article: List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners. When I saw all of those new edits, especially the ones with red Wiki links, it reminded me of this comment that was made at the Talk Page for that article: Talk:List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners#Adding actors. That comment, essentially, asked editors to not add actors with red links (no Wiki articles) to that article's page. I remember thinking ... wow, all these new edits are certainly going to upset whoever made that Talk Page comment or suggestion. Then, lo and behold, I found that both parties were one and the same -- namely, you! That really surprised me. So, I was just curious. What prompted you to add all those new edits to the article, in light of your Talk Page concern? Or, conversely, why did that Talk Page issue concern you, in light of the fact that you subsequently added all those recent edits? I was just curious. Certainly, the two items are a contradiction in terms. Others might also be perplexed to see this. Perhaps you might want to add an updated comment to the Talk Page posting? Or perhaps just delete the original Talk Page post altogether? Either way, as it now stands, there are two contradictory messages out there -- both, ironically, from you. I was just curious about this, and would appreciate your feedback. I am assuming that you no longer support your own original post, and had a "change of heart" -- but I hate to assume things. So, please let me know if, indeed, you did have a change of heart on this issue. If so, I am curious why? I don't much substantively care one way or the other -- like I said, the situation perplexed and amused me -- and intrigued my curiosity as to how it all came about. That's all. Please fill me in on your thoughts. Thanks. With regard to this article (List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners), I don't really care much one way or the other -- to be honest. But, I would think it should be an article about big-name actors who have appeared in multiple Best Pictures ... as opposed to minor / extra's / "nobodies" who simply happened to chance upon minor ("extra") roles in multiple Best Pictures. In other words, it's vaguely interesting to know that a famous / well-known actor like Russell Crowe acted in 2 Best Pictures. The implication being that his great acting contributed to its Best Picture status -- in fact, multiple times. But, what's the relevance when some "no name" actor (some minor, insignificant extra) happened to chance into multiple minor / extra roles? I am just curious. Aren't all those red-link actors essentially minor extras ... insignificant "nobodies", as it were? Isn't that scenario exactly what your original Talk Page comment was attempting to address? Please let me know. Thanks. Also, I will reply to our discussion thread on Best Picture sequels in the few days or so, when I have more time to adequately do so. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 05:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC))

I added those extra names because someone else had made additions that appeared in red and then proceeded to create pages for those actors. In light of this, I decided to go ahead and add actors hoping that someone else would take the initiative to create pages for them. I also figured that if nobody did, I would erase them after a certain period of time had passed. I am the person who originally created this list, and when I first created it, I added all of those people who are listed in red. I thought it looked too cluttered, so I erased them all and added that message on the Talk Page. Upon re-editing the list, I noticed that some of the actors who didn't have Wikipedia pages when I first created the list suddenly did have pages. So after making these changes, I figured that one month was a good time-frame to leave them up and see if anyone would make pages for the actors (You'll also notice that I didn't make any additions to the list of actors that appeared in 2 Best Picture winners. Doing so would make the list way too long). Just so you know, I'm going to give it another week before I start erasing names. Hope that clears things up for you.TheLastAmigo 19:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I just came up with a better solution. The actors who were listed in red are now listed in the discussion page with an invitation to create pages for them. TheLastAmigo 21:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks for the posting. Now, I see what you did -- that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. I don't really care one way or the other, I had just thought the situation odd and wanted to understand it, that's all. So, with your explanation, I now understand how this came about and what your thinking was. Two things to mention to you: (1) one of the actors -- Gino Corrado -- now has a wiki article and a blue link, yet is still listed on the Talk Page, without having been transferred into the actual article. Thought you might want to know. And (2) ... just out of curiosity ... when you created this page, did you intend for it to be about recognizable-name actors who appeared in several Best Pictures? Or did you intend for it to be about "no-name" actors / extras? I am just curious. Yes, I realize that it is a subjective distinction as to what actor is a "recognizable name" versus a "no-name" -- but I was just wondering what your intent originally was. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 06:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC))
Hi, it's me again. I had some free time and wanted to follow up on the above discussion. I am still curious as to your reply to the last question posed by me. Namely ... And (2) ... just out of curiosity ... when you created this page, did you intend for it to be about recognizable-name actors who appeared in several Best Pictures? Or did you intend for it to be about "no-name" actors / extras? I am just curious. Yes, I realize that it is a subjective distinction as to what actor is a "recognizable name" versus a "no-name" -- but I was just wondering what your intent originally was. Please reply at My Talk Page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

About your edits[edit]

Information.png Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Academy Award for Best Picture has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 00:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Information.png The recent edit you made to Academy Award for Best Picture constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 00:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, first of all, I do not think that what I edited constitutes vandalism. How in the world is it vandalism if it's the correct information? I'm not vandalising the page, I'm just contributing correct information. You're not a Wikipedia administrator, so who are you to be playing Wikipedia police? I don't want to get into an edit war, so I won't do anymore editing, but I think that you're way out of line to report me for vandalism when I'm clearly not vandalising the page. I've been a major contributor to the Academy Awards pages for several years and even added the information concerning Traffic about a year ago, which was changed to this butchered (and clearly incorrect) phrasing by God knows who. I also wrote the entire page List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners, so I know what I'm doing.TheLastAmigo (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, if I add an edit summary and use citations, will that make you happy? I'm asking because I think that the information I added was correct, relevant, and constructive information. At the very least, let me edit the information concerning Traffic because the information that is used in the article is false. There was a sequel mini-series to Traffic on the USA network about two years after the film came out, but that is irrelevant information. What is relevant is that Traffic is the first film based on a TV movie or mini-series since Marty to be nominated for Best Picture.TheLastAmigo (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to leave it alone now, but in response to your comments about me playing "Wikipedia police", please don't be vile like that. I'm fighting vandalism with HG, "policing", if you will, the recent changes page. I'm backing out of this issue now though to stay out of the way of 3RR. [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 01:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I made you upset by saying you were playing "Wikipedia police." I was out of line in that respect, and I'm sorry. I was just upset that you accused me of vandalising the page when it was clearly not my intent. I understand your position on vandalism and I wasn't aware that you were actually part of the Wikipedia vandalism team. I guess that to me, vandalism would constitute adding lewd, suggestive, vulgar, abusive, or intentionally false information just for laughs. It's not as if I put up fake or misleading information, or put up the 2008 Best Picture nominees even though they haven't come out yet. I was just submitting correct information in good faith and you deemed it worthy to revert what I edited without doing any proper research to see if you even knew what you were talking about. I am an expert on the Academy Awards and have made some major contributions to the page over the years. I submitted to you an explanation of my changes and provided to you the proper information, proving that I was not a vandal, and you still reported me for vandalism. I want to comply with the policies of Wikipedia and I do not feel that my edits were against any sort of policies or protocol. I find it incredibly ironic that you are fighting vandalism on Wikipedia and don't care that the page I edited contained false information which I corrected, or that I was fixing other people's edits to information that I originally provided in the first place.TheLastAmigo (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
It's all good. I apologize for reverting your work -- such oversights DO happen. Not often, but they do happen. Have a good day :) [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 02:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"You're not a Wikipedia administrator, so who are you to be playing Wikipedia police?"[edit]

I noticed you apologised for the remark itself, but I thought I should notify you that this is completely incorrect. If by 'police' you mean people issuing warnings or doing anti-vandal work, there are a significant number more that are not administrators that are doing such things than there are administrators doing it. Telling people what they can and can not do when their edits are supported by policy makes no sense (maybe the warning wasn't, but he has every right to issue one). Regards, neuro(talk) 12:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey man, that's all water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned. My major gripe was that he reported me for vandalism because I reverted his edits, even though my edits were clearly not even remotely in the realm of vandalism. He wasn't even undoing vandal work, since I'm a member of the WikiProject Film and the Film Awards Task Force. I was just doing what I do, which is not vandalism. I was actually correcting incorrect information, if you must know, and he reverted it back to the incorrect information without doing any research. But I apologised for my remarks, acknowledged that I was out of line, and it's all over now, so stay out of it please. This isn't your fight.TheLastAmigo (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
As I say, my fight was with the ethos, not the drama surrounding it. Take it easy, neuro(talk) 22:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners[edit]

Hello. I had not visited the above-named article in quite some time ... but I just recently did so. I noticed that you did quite a bit of work on this article ... in particular adding the new section about non-actors. Great job! Just wanted to acknowledge your contributions. Many thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC))

Hello, fellow film fan![edit]

This is to ask for your input on Balalaika, MGM 1939. Though I'm a good editor/copy writer and have been working on it since August (09), this is my first major research project of any description, anywhere. User talk:Nehrams2020 has been kind enough to help me, and I'm hoping you will look the article over; I would really appreciate your comments and suggestions, especially additional free sources of information/photos, to round it off nicely. Thank you, Shir-El too 16:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Actors in Academy Award for Best Picture[edit]

Hi Amigo, I noticed you've been adding extra actor names to the table of winners and nominees in Academy Award for Best Picture. Are you sure nonstarring actors are supposed to be included? —Coder Dan (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

List of fantasy films:2010s[edit]

Do you have references that those films will be released at those times? If not, please don't add them.-5- (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Response[edit]

Take the debate to the talk page for the article, not my talk page.-5- (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners[edit]

To – User talk:TheLastAmigo. Hello. I see that you do a lot of editing at the following page: List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners. And, by looking at your annual "update postings", it seems to me that you like to keep this page current and "up to date". Now, when I look at the Chart on the following Talk Page (Talk:List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners#Adding actors, I noticed that several of the actors listed now have blue links (to newly-created articles), as opposed to red links (for no article existing on the actor). Specifically, the four actors are: Herbert Evans, James Millican, Suzanne Ridgeway, and Frank Wilcox. I was wondering ... is there any reason that you have not incorporated these blue-linked actors into the main article page? Or have you already done so? I was not sure as to the status of all this. And, I did not want to go in and make any incorrect edits. But, I assumed that there was a reason as to why you either: (A) purposely did not include them into the main article; or (B) purposely left them as blue-links in the Talk Page chart. But, I am confused as to the situation. Can you please give me your insights into this, so that one of us can make the appropriate / updated changes that may be necessary. Please let me know. Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC))

I just have not noticed the blue links yet. I only really update a few times a year if I find someone through research that has not been added or when the latest Oscars are announced. If you want to add them, feel free to.TheLastAmigo (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I will start to add them in, then. Are you sure that James Millican appeared in Gone with the Wind (film)? That film does not appear in his IMDb listing of credits. Please let me know, at my Talk Page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC))
Hello, again. (A) I added Herbert Evans, Suzanne Ridgeway, and Frank Wilcox into the article. (B) I re-computed and revised all the statistics on the page. (C) I will wait to hear from you about Millican and Gone with the Wind, per my last post (above). Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC))
Very strange. I went to James Millican's IMDB page and found nothing about him appearing in Gone with the Wind either. I did this list some time ago and pulled all the names from IMDB, so I guess it is possible that he was listed several years ago and then removed as IMDB is all user edited. However, I guess that he can be listed for 2 films. I'll look into it some more, but don't put him down for Gone with the Wind for the time being.TheLastAmigo (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello and thanks. I added Millican with only two films (leaving out Gone with the Wind, at least for now). I also re-calculated all the statistics on the page. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC))

the Hobbit[edit]

Could you please explain why you reverted this edit without explanation? The article (The Hobbit (2012 film)), and the talkpage (Talk:The Hobbit (film project)) are at different titles, which needs to be resolved. Skomorokh 01:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I didn't do anything to the talk page. All I did on the talk page was post a comment.TheLastAmigo (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

This is a neutral request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#The Hobbit.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Need your help[edit]

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

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have added my input at that Nomination for Deletion page. The nomination is ridiculous, and I will be very upset if this article is deleted. Thanks again. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I read your response and I really appreciate it. I will also be very upset if it is deleted. I've been maintaining the article since 2007, and the guy who nominated it for deletion has only been a Wikipedia editor since February of this year. I'm flabbergasted by this nomination. It does seem that most editors so far are in favor of keeping it, however. TheLastAmigo (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with all that you state in your above post. I will make some other editors aware of this deletion nomination, and I will ask for their input at that page. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I assume that you saw that this discussion closed with a KEEP result. That's good news! Let me know if you want my Academy Award book (that we discussed on my Talk Page). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I had not seen that yet. Thanks for the update. Sorry I haven't gotten back to you on the book. I've been very busy with work the past week or so. TheLastAmigo (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. No rush. I will just wait to hear from you. And I am glad to see the good news (the "keep" result) on that article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Question about Academy Awards[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TheLastAmigo. You have new messages at Joseph A. Spadaro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Hi. The recent Academy Awards events brought you to mind. About a year ago, we had a discussion. You can see my Talk Page. I never heard back from you on that issue, so I am following up on it with you. Please let me know your thoughts. The discussion is here: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro#Question about Academy Awards. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of fantasy films of the 2010s, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luke Evans. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cavalcade (film). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

A Oscar stat page I made a year ago in my sandbox I forgot about-list of animated Oscar films[edit]

Here: User:Wgolf/sandbox/List of Feature Length Animated films nominated for an Oscar yeah I made this and completely forgot to continue with it-not sure how to format it even now or what to do with it. Wgolf (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bond girl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Honey Ryder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)