User talk:Betty Logan

Shaun Murphy (snooker player)

I would be grateful if you didn't revert whole edits because of one particular part of the edit, like you did here. Christopher Connor (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I would be grateful if you didn't change content so that it contradicts the sources. I'm not sifting through the article putting back things that shouldn't have been changed so I suggest you restore your edit but take account of why it was reversed. Betty Logan (talk) 10:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You could have simply reverted that particular part of the edit without reverting the whole edit, especially as it was a large one. Contrary to what you're claiming, this wouldn't be very difficult or tedious to do and doesn't require sifting through the whole article. Doing what you did simply disturbs the other editor and could be construed as vandalism. Also calling my edit "suspicious" and that it "contradicts the sources" is blatantly wrong. The edit said

Maguire said "I don't want to be a fat world champion" a reference to Murphy

while the reference states

Stephen stoked the flames of the rivalry in 2006, saying, "I don't want to be a fat world champion", a clear swipe at Shaun's success at The Crucible the year before.

It's not hard to see that these sentences match very closely. Christopher Connor (talk) 10:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You know perfectly well that is not the problem with your edit. You have swapped the roles in the description of the chalk incident so it contradicts the sources backing it up. You have also removed sources from the article without giving any reason for doing so. On the subject of reverting your edit, it wouldn't take you any more time than it would me, since all you have to do is restore your edit and make the corrections so I suggest that's what you do, rather than expecting me to copy-edit your work. Betty Logan (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean now. You are indeed right that it was Maguire who got a frame docked. This was a geniune mistake that confused me for which I apologise. (I wouldn't be stupid enough to make such a edit on purpose when the sources indicate otherwise.) I'll now revert those changes. Christopher Connor (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The Murphy/Maguire section gets vandalised a lot, and I've never seen you edit the snooker articles before which aroused my suspicions. If you had been a regular snooker editor I would have left a message on your talk page to give you a chance to correct it. I jumped the gun here and I should have given you the same courtesy I give to the other regular editors so I'm sorry about. Fresh start? Betty Logan (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, no problem. I thought it was the "fat" comment that you disagreed with. The situation is kind of ridiculous since it was originally me who wrote that rivalry bit (and correctly!) over three years ago , only to get confused later and swap the roles! Christopher Connor (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting the Murphy unliked section, he himself admits that he is unliked and for a snooker player it is quite unusual as to how outspoken he is and the affect that this has on his popularity. If it ok to make mentions regarding Jimmy White's popularity, surely it is equally as required that in the case of Murphy, it is mentioned that he is an unpopular sportsman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.32.67 (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the Shaun Murphy article, please start a discussion on the article talk page, which is where content discussions are supposed to take place. Betty Logan (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I have, however you appear to be fairly well engaged in a discussion here? I invite you to defend why you;ve deleted the Murphy popularity point, as Murphy himself admits that he is not well liked and this is a significant part of who he is.

Pifeedback

Could you give your opinion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pifeedback.com?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

I'll take a look. Betty Logan (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Despicable Me

Could you explain this edit cause I really can't work it out. You seem to have reverted to a really old version - one before the film was released and only had 10 Rotten Tomatoes reviews. Some good information was lost in the process. - Kollision (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what I've done there. If you look at my edits I was reverting some vandalism by an IP and all I can think of is that I've got my tabs mixed up. Sorry about that. Betty Logan (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the IP made an to the article. I was looking at what he had done and it turned out to be legit, and for some reason I've saved that version instead of just closing the window. I've restored the version before my edit so hopefully it's ok now. Betty Logan (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well I just got an edit conflict with you Betty (now two times). I was asking how you got $110 million for the budget and removed the LA Times source. Figured something went wrong with a revert or something. :) Mike Allen 20:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to go and check my other edits from around that time and make sure I haven't stuffed up on the other articles. Betty Logan (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

References

Hi,

I was considering deleting many of the references from the bikini wax article. Some are insufficiently detailed and some that do have details, they didn't contain what the article claims they contain.

So I'm happy to see that you have a copy of many of these references.[1] Could you add details to the references?

BTW, I think you're wrong to revert my good faith edit to add patently obvious information[2] but I'm too busy today to persue that. Gronky (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of the references. They are all listed in the reference section but just poorly organised. The information you are adding is a claim about the process so needs to be sourced just like all the other claims about the process. If you don't think the references back up the claims I suggest you challenge them on the talk page, and if no-one defends their use then remove them. Betty Logan (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Aha. Thanks for organising the references. I've added tags asking for quotes, so hopefully the information you added will help someone else do the next bit. Gronky (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Buena Vista

Thanks for the clarification! Best regards, Esb94 (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Jenny Agutter

Thank you for fixing this. My mistake. I didn't read it properly and the way it was formatted, it didn't occur to me that it was an episode title. Cheers, Rossrs (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome. Generally I'm not a fan of superfluous notes, especially when someone can just click on the link and find the information out, but when someone makes an episode appearance in a series it can be helpful if you want to track their work down. I took out the rest of the junk and just retained the episode title. Betty Logan (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

American Gigolo

Ah....

You were right. And I was wrong.

Apologies.

--89.211.145.121 (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It happens. I removed something just last week that turned out to be sourced. It's not a foolproof system - especially when you're just looking for a word or two in an entire article, but at leats other editors do tend to catch it if you overlook something. Betty Logan (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Godfather talk page

I am not entering into dialogue with an anon. editor who makes no positive contributions and then insults me. There is nothing to be gained by it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The anon. editor's reference to the genre of the film The Shawshank Redemption rang a bell, so I checked the page history: this is an example of how this editor works. He hops from IP to IP, disrupting film articles. He has been blocked numerous times. Check the IPs that changed the genre on The Godfather earlier today. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is popping up on my watchlist every five minutes, so something is going to have to be done. If he's hopping IPs then maybe you should apply for semi-protection or something, at least that will put an end to the constant reverting. Betty Logan (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted the automated rpp a couple times now, and cannot get it to work. Do you want to have a go at it? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I had it semi-protected. Let's hope he moves on. Betty Logan (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo re-release chart

I found a chart hidden within the depths of Box Office Mojo. Most film's re-releases over the span of their life looks to be referenced on it at any point in time. It hasn't been updated since 2002, but I figured you may find it useful. If you are already aware of it, disregard. DrNegative (talk) 05:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I will use it to cross reference the CPI amounts we have for Star Wars, Raiders and ET on the US chart. Betty Logan (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There is your

Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Regarding "forfeit"

Thanks for your comment. However, Armbrust doesn't think the word should be used because it isn't in the sources. Even after trying to explain, still no use. I have no idea what the problem is. He doesn't seem to understand what the word means. He doesn't explain his position, just insists that because the word doesn't appear in the source, it can't be used, then edit wars to keep his version of the article, despite my explaining why it can be used—even going as far as quoting the dictionary. I'm even starting to doubt whether he's doing this in good faith. Christopher Connor (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with every single decision Armbrust ever makes but ultimately he's a good editor who does a lot of hard work—I certainly wouldn't relish filling out all those drawsheets he does. The Snooker articles have certainly improved since he came along. At the same time I can understand why you don't want to back down when you're usage of the word is correct, but there are only three ways this can play out: one of you can back down (which doesn't look like happening); a protracted discussion about the meaning of a word with the inevitable RfC that will take up even more of your time; or you try to come up with a phrasing that is satisfactory to both of you. Betty Logan (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain to him why forfeit can be used indeed? This will save everyone time. Christopher Connor (talk) 11:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Country

Your opinion on The White Ribbon's talk page would be appreciated. It involves countries and production. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks so much! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for your thoughts on the countries issue. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

If it goes some way to resolving the dispute then I'm glad to help. Personally though I think the country field in the infobox is poorly thought out since these types of issues are always arising. It isn't really clear what "country" means: the nationality of the film? the country where the film was made? the country where the funding comes from? I would prefer to use the country of the company that registered the copyright and it would make the whole issue clear cut. Betty Logan (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

2004 European Open (snooker)

Have copied the discussion from my talk page to the articles talk page. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, it's a good idea to preserve it there, in case anyone else has an issue with the wording. Betty Logan (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

First billing on Superman (film)

I posted a discussion here. Cheers. Wildroot (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Darkness2005

It seems that it is impossible to discuss edits with Darkness2005, so I have mentioned the issue with the editor at WP:ANI. The discussion can be seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I'll add my comments. Betty Logan (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

RCP *sigh*

The toys have come flying out of the pram on this one... --89.211.65.21 (talk) 11:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Deathly Hallows

Nice trim, but do you want to put back in the explanation about the Elder Wand, so it doesn't come from nowhere at the end? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually restored an earlier version by you from yesterday evening. I haven't seen the film so I don't want to alter plot elements, but when we have a perfectly adequate summary that is within the recommended limist it just seems logical to go back to that version. Betty Logan (talk) 06:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh, it's gone through so many versions I lost track. Ok, I'll try to put that in tersely. I saw the movie at 3:15AM opening night, because the midnight show was sold out. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It's just the natural cycle for plot summaries. It gets written, and eventually expands past the acceptable size. You then restore an older version, it gets improved slightly, and then it expands again so you have to go back to an earlier version, but hopefully one that was an improvement on the previous restore. I picked yours from the edit summary because I noticed you'd specifically trimmed it so it seemed a good version to put back in. Eventually it crystalises into something coherent and concise. Betty Logan (talk) 06:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the version that keeps getting restored is that it's dreadful. It has plot points in the wrong order. Is there any way to stop restoring this particular version of the plot? It's just not accurate, and it starts a new round of edits all over again, leading to more plot bloat. If the reversion was to a plot that actually reflected what was seen onscreen, this editing cycle would stop sooner. Trumpetrep (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen the film, so feel free to correct it if you wish. The problem is that everyday I come back to it, it has blown up to 1500/2000 even 3000 words. It's supposed to be a brief summary, and the guidelines suggest 400–700 words. The previous film has a plot summary of 500 words, and the Deathly Hallows book is summarised in 500 words, so there is no reason for this film's plot summary to be 3/4 times as large as that. If you want to rewrite it please do, but please respect the guidelines, and remember readers don't want to read an essay. Betty Logan (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you please undo your latest revert to the incorrect plot? That's just unhelpful. The plot you keep reverting to is wrong. It'd be easier to condense that monstrously long one than to correct the one you keep reverting to. The repeated reversions to that incorrect plot is more problematic than the too-long plot, right now. Trumpetrep (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Only you seem to be complaining that it is incorrect, and you have entered into disputes with other editors over this particular version of the plot. I suggest you make any necessary corrections but do so without violating WP:FILMPLOT. If you are that unhappy with this version of the plot, rewrite it without breaching the guidelines. Betty Logan (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I have not entered into a dispute with anyone, let alone multiple people. SarekOfVulcan informed me of the 3-revert rule, which you seem to be in violation of by repeatedly reverting to an incorrect version of a plot that you haven't even seen. I understand that you are more concerned with the length of the summary than with its accuracy, but hopefully, you can understand that accuracy concerns should trump length concerns on Wikipedia. You would be doing the article a favor by undoing your latest reversion. Trumpetrep (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The guidelines clearly state that any exemptions to the word count range must be agreed by the other editors first. Everytime you bloat the plot, you breach a guideline that carries a consensus. If you continue bloating it I will simply head over to the Film Project and have the policy enforced. There is nothing to prevent you making any necessary corrections within the 400–700 word limit, so this issue can simply be resolved. We both know that if we have to drag other editors into this they will back the version that is within the recommended limits, so it's really up to you how this proceeds. Your arguments don't stack up anyway, making it longer doesn't make it correct. Betty Logan (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You completely misunderstand my point. I have no desire to make it longer, simply to make it correct. The film has just opened. The plot will undergo a series of edits by enthusiastic users who have just seen it. Conscientious editors can then go in and trim that plot down to within the guidelines of Wikipedia. Your method is killing a fly with a sledgehammer. By repeatedly reverting to an incorrect version of the plot, again to a film that you have not seen, you are erasing pertinent information that has been filled in by other users. What's most counterproductive about your reversion method is that it starts the cycle over again. So, instead of working through consensus, you're reverting to an already debunked version of the plot. I am simply asking you to undo your latest reversion and let the users focus the scope of the plot. It has reached a healthy level of accuracy and length before, and it will do so again. Your efforts, are extending that process, rather than shortening it. Trumpetrep (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Harry Potter 7: Your correction of the paragraph about the fascist bureacracy

Thanks for editing my awkward writing, but it appears that you have totally removed my comments about "fascist bureaucracy" because it might be perceived as original research. Please note that there is already an article (not my original research) about this Harry Potter movie that uses these words, and I was influenced by that article.

Here is the article:

http://cinespect.com/scary-potter-and-the-fascist-bureaucracy/

Since you write better than me, please put a few equivalent sentences in the plot summary, to say that the Death Eaters subverted the Ministry of Magic and transformed it into a fascist system that persecutes Muggle Blood people. You can see that there are Inquisition-style courts and a new police force, whose officers wear arm bands and combat boots, terrorizing people on the basis of their ancestry. This fascism aspect is a fundamentally important aspect of this Harry Potter movie, which makes the film more serious in many ways.

Regards,

TotalMemory —Preceding unsigned comment added by TotalMemory (talk • contribs) 15:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This is just an interpretation which is not part of the plot. Only plot development should be included in the plot summaries, not interpretations themes or viewpoints. If you think these are important details, discuss it on the article talk page where it would be appropriate to include them in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for my verbosity, but although I agree that the words "fascist bureaucracy" is somewhat of an interpretation, the fact that the Death Eaters are using the Magic Ministry to gain power and persecute Muggle Blood people is definitely a relevant part of the plot development, it is not themes or viewpoints . Since I do not want to be rude, I will not put this information in the plot summary again, and I will restrict the argument to this talk page here. But I still suggest that you should at least expand that sentence (which you have put back) which says that "The Death Eaters infiltrated the Magic Ministry", by adding a few words to clarify the purpose of this infiltration. In fact, the way you put that half sentence makes it look irrelevant, and maybe you should totally remove it to improve the style of the paragraph, which becomes awkward when it is incomplete. I was the one who had originally added the sentence that starts with "Death Eaters who infiltrated the Magic Ministry..." but other contributors truncated it. Better to remove it altogether instead of this current incomplete and awkward form.

Regards, TotalMemory —Preceding unsigned comment added by TotalMemory (talk • contribs) 15:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible translation help

Hello Betty Logan. I saw your request for translation help on the War and Peace talk page. One editor that might be of assistance is User talk:Galassi. Last summer this editor did some translation work on the article for The Red Tent (film). I checked and this person is still editing here. Of course, they may not be able to help but I thought it was worth letting you know in case that they can. Thanks for all of your work on this article. MarnetteD | Talk 03:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Google translater only gets us so far I'm afraid.. I'll see if the note gets any reponses (the Russian guy who brought us the sources might be able to clarify a few things for us), and if it doesn't I'll see if Galassi will help us out. Those two articles Greenland Cat put us on to had some great information—budget stuff, release dates, production dates, ticket sales. The sources on the Russian article may be useful too. Betty Logan (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Rollback usage

If you have come here to reprimand me for "absuing" rollback in regards to this editor, please refer to this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Notable_or_not. Thanks Betty Logan (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Powell and Pressburger

Please explain in the Discussion page for the article where we can discuss it properly why you want to see the actual thesis when all that is needed is proof that a thesis exists? -- SteveCrook (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to actually see the thesis, but proof that it exists isn't enough, it has to be verifible i.e. there should be enough information there if I want to see it. The link would be sufficient if it were actually there. Since it's not we need the name, title, year of award, and the university. You may find this pedantic but so much crap gets put on Wikipedia it needs to be clear where every bit of information comes from so readers can evaluate the information on their own terms. Betty Logan (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

When the page loads - which I now see it doesn't do every time, but does do most of the times I try it, it tells you the date and title of the thesis, the name of the candidate and the name of the university:

Author: Natacha Thiéry;
Supervisor: Jean-Louise Leutrat;
University: Université de la Sorbonne;
Year: 2003;
Thèse doctorat;
Title: Photogénie du désir: les films de Michael Powell et Emeric Pressburger, 1945-1950.
Even if that site isn't as reliable as it could be it is the repository for French academic papers. I loaded the page 20 times in a row, it failed to find the details in its database on just one of those occasions. So if it doesn't load when you try it, try it again -- SteveCrook (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That explains it then. I'll still add the reference details anyway and then it covers it. Betty Logan (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks -- SteveCrook (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Adultnature1989

Thank you for starting a sockpuppetry investigation. Although I felt it was obvious Darkness2005 was behind this account a month ago, I wasn't sure what to do, so I will follow the initiative you've taken very carefully. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame we have to go down this path because he's actually one of the hardest working editors around, which ultimately amounts to very little because a good 2/3 of his edits end up being reverted. It's his decision though, the blocking admin made it clear he would be welcomed back if he agreed to discuss his edits, so he should be blocked again and issued with the same ultimatum IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. I agree with you, it's a shame; but then again he had his chance and it's for the greater good. Thank you for taking the trouble to sort something out. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately it would appear as though Darkness2005/Adultnature1989 opened a new account, under the name Darknessthecurse, on 17 December 2010. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. He was blocked for not discussing his edits, so I'll keep an eye on him and if he hasn't learned his lesson I will file another sock report. Betty Logan (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand people that are blocked from a site, but keep coming back to it like nothing ever happened. He can actually be blocked now for evading a block. However, it doesn't look like it would do much... —Mike Allen 09:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess they would have to set up an IP range block, but they don't like doing it because it blocks out legitimate editors. They would probably block his account if we reported him but probably won't set up a range block unless his edits are problematic because of the effects on other users. If they only blocked his account he would get a new one and we wouldn't know what it was. It's best to not do anything now, monitor him now he's back on the radar, give him warnings if he causes problems and once he's built up a few warnings try to get a range block which might stop him registering an account. Betty Logan (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

John Higgins

Hi Betty, I've semi-protected the article, I've seen the problems you've been having with the anon IP. I've also seen you've started a discussion on the article talk page, well done. Let me know if I can be of any further assistance. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah thanks. Obviously it's a difficult section, but hopefully the IP will join the discussion and we can iron out his concerns. I'm going to drop a message at the snooker project as well and try to get some further input on this article. Hopefully we can get a version we are all happy with. Thanks for helping out. Betty Logan (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Greetings of the season to you and yours!

Happy Holidays, Betty Logan! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a very Merry Christmas and happy editing in the year ahead! MarnetteD | Talk 20:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Bzuk (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Wikisanta-no motto.png		Merry XMAS (2010)
		Armbrust is wishing you a Merry Christmas! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Yuletide, Litha, Eid, Mōdraniht, Diwali, Hogmanay, Wren's Day, Hannukkah, Kwanzaa, Lenaia, Festivus, Jonkonnu, or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May this find you in good health, good spirits, good company, and good finances. If any of these be missing, may God see fit to restore you in good time. Best regards! Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks guys, you have a nice xmas too! Betty Logan (talk) 12:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Avatar and Frank Herbert

Betty Logan,

User:Glycoform seems to have a point about this Jesus Incident issue, though it just doesn't feel right to have a reference to a chapter in a book to prove that there are similarities between Avatar and The Jesus Incident. It would be much more preferable to have a newspaper article, magazine column, or some reliable source to support his claims. Tell me what you think on my talk page. Thanks-(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 02:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC))

Basically the problem with his edit is that it is WP:SYNTHESIS because he's drawing conclusions from separate sources i.e. Dune and Avatar. I'm too tired to discuss the issue with the editor now so I'll explain it more fully tomorrow on the Avatar talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter films

I would appreciate it if you would not bombard me with warnings. I am in the process of sorting this situation out with an admin as I have stated on the talk page of the article, so I would like no further interruptions. Thank you. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I am obliged to warn you about edit-warring, and I am obliged to inform you there is an investigation into your case. If you don't want the messages remove them, but I am just following the procedure. Betty Logan (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: Avatar discussion

Hi Betty, thanks for seeking my opinion. Sorry, I've been away for the last couple of weeks. Having read the discussion on the talk page, I would tend to agree with the points that both yourself and Cinosaur were making. I take it the issues regarding the Frank Herbert reference have been resolved?--Forward Unto Dawn 05:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I think so, it seems to have settled down. If you abandon your post again I'll have you shot! Betty Logan (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

:-) Hahaha, I read you loud and clear!--Forward Unto Dawn 10:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

List of people who accepted Golden Raspberry Awards

Thank you for your input on this list. Any help cleaning the article is appreciated, since my attempts seem to result in complaints at this point (for the record, I couldn't care less about "winning" an argument, I just want to see the article cleaned up. Thanks again! Yaksar (let's chat) 03:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It's probably best if you ease up on the "cleaning up" for a few days and let the discussion on the talk page run its course, since there seems to be some issue about the scope of the article, and see if a consensus forms for the direction of the article. I personally won't be editing the article while I am participating in the discussion as a "third opinion" otherwise it invalidates my viewpoint as an objective one. However, once the discussion comes to a conclusion I will be happy to help "clean up" within the limits of what is agreed. Betty Logan (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I don't think you have to worry about being the "third opinion", that discussion seemed to end after the user tried to report me. But I understand your desire to stay objective, and thanks again for your input. Yaksar (let's chat) 04:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this is right?

I believe it's protocol to inform editors involved in a dispute when there is action being taken, so I just would like to point out Talk:Acceptance_of_Golden_Raspberry_Awards_by_recipients#RfC:_Removal_of_sourced_info to you. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Your barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For your invariable sobriety, rationality, eloquence, and remarkable listening skills in discussion – something reminiscent of the Socratic style – I present you with this barnstar. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Terminator

I'm seriously "this" close to venturing into wiki-ettiquette alert territory. Which is to say that the willful density on display has me about to throw all politeness out the window. So I think I'll just beg out of that conversation now and continue reverting as required. Keep up the good fight, yo. Millahnna (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Good call, Betty. I was just thinking the exact same thing myself but but have decided to step back from editing the section for fear of being drawn into an edit-war. Somehow I doubt the neutral wording will appease the problem editor, though. He seems hell-bent on pushing the statement that the entirety of "the media" got this thing wrong, even though he can't directly source that claim. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It's about as neutral as we can make it now. If he reverts it again there are essentially two options left: wait and see if ANI get on to it, and if they don't we can drop an RFC at the Film project. Betty Logan (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Betty Logan. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alvin and the Chipmunks (film series).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

• I wouldn't normally take the time to alert someone personally of a message on an AfD, but this is pretty relevant.--Yaksar (let's chat) 12:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The article is a complete copyvio so has to go, but this point was overshadowed by some of the other arguments. I've changed my vote accordingly. Betty Logan (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

RoI sports

Just wondere what was your rationale for making this edit, given that there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page and that to did not leave an edit summary. Would you like to self-revert and join the discussion? Fmph (talk) 07:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I made any controversial edits, I didn't realise a debate was going on. An IP had vandalised an article on watch list so I checked out his other edits and they were all vandal edits, so I reverted the article to the last clean version. I've obviously been careless, would you like me to revert my edit? Betty Logan (talk) 07:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That might be best. On second thoughts, it might be simpler to filter out parts of those edits. OK. Just leave as is, and I'll take it to Talk. Thanks Betty Fmph (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

David Yates and Harry Potter film series

Hello. :) I was reading the Harry Potter (film series) talk page and there was a discussion about nominating it for GA status. Well, I am more than willing to have a bash at resolving the reference formatting problem. On the topic of GA, I have nominated the David Yates article and all I need now is for someone to review it. Would you be willing to take a look at the article to see if its any good and, if you think it is, would it be possible for you to have a go at reviewing it (it should be in the Theatre, Film and Drama section)? That's if you have time of course. I am not permitted to review the article because I have worked on it for some time. I am desperate to get this into GA status as I think it's a good looking article. If you can't help, no worries. Thanks. :) Hallows Horcruxes 09:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never actually reviewed an article for GA status and I'm not overly familiar with the criteria, so it wouldn't feel appropriate for me to either pass/fail the article. However, I will take a look at it either today or tomorrow and peer review it to check the sourcing, balance etc and see if there are any automatic fail points. It looks well referenced and formatted so that's usually a good sign. Betty Logan (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the help. Hallows Horcruxes 16:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I have contacted User:Geometry guy about a review of the article and he has agreed to carry out a final assessment of it, providing that you have written a 'detailed peer review comment' on the GAN review page after peer reviewing the article. I hope this is Ok. Hallows Horcruxes 18:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

That's ok. I'll do that, and he can have the final say. Betty Logan (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You have more than demonstrated an ability to review GANs already. Many thanks for your help! Geometry guy 20:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope you are still watchlisting the review. My thanks and compliments remain unchanged. This case already illustrates the importance of checking the quality of the sources and how they are used. GA reviewers sometimes skip this aspect, as it can be very difficult to check the sources. However a few spot checks (comparing the source material to the text) can be invaluable in finding problems. If you take this seriously, you can become one of GA's best reviewers. Geometry guy 23:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The assessment is still on my watchlist and I still keep checking back. I do feel guilty for getting his hopes up when there are obviously still problems. There are lots of things I overlooked, so I'm paying attention to how the checking proceeds and what I should have looked for. In the areas you write in you develop an instinct for what sources are valid, inbalance in the coverage etc and can pick up on it by just giving it a good read through. My mistake here was expecting the problems to jump out at me like they would on a subject and article I know. Once you're out of your comfort zone and don't have that familiarity with the topic I guess you need a more methodical approach to find the problems. I will be following this through to the end, it's interesting watching the whole process. Betty Logan (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Betty Logan. You have new messages at Talk:Bikini waxing.
Message added 13:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

6-Red WC articles

I have reverted your redirection and speedy deletion request of the 888.com championship article. Per my comments at AfD, this is not the way. Please first move this article to an alternative title per your original suggestion e.g. 888sport.com Six-red World Championship and then move the Sangsom Six-red World Championship. That way the history is not lost and if desired the 888sport.com Six-red World Championship and 2009 888sport.com Six-red World Championship can be merged properly. Let me know if you need help with any of these tasks. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 09:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks, that is what I will do. Betty Logan (talk) 09:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It's done now, and I've suggested an article merge at the new article page. There are some links that need to be sorted out, but I'll sort those out once the outcome of the article merge discussion is known. No point going through the links now just to change them all again in a week's time. Betty Logan (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

All links sorted for the 888.com tournament (I think) – there aren't that many. Will have to wait for WP software to purge the WC navbox template links before I can be sure. I also left my comments with regards to the merge proposal. _wjemather^bigissue 10:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Bette Logan in Meet Mr. Jordan or Betty Logan in Heaven can Wait?

FWiW, I always been meaning to ask, did you take your wikiname from "Betty Logan" in Heaven Can Wait? Bzuk (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC).

It's actually my middle name and surname, but I went with it in on Wikipedia for the connection to the 1978 film. Betty Logan (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Titanic

why do not agree? please explain some?--Bakhshi82 (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The question isn't whether I agree or not; there is a discussion about the content you are trying to add on the talk page, and as of yet you failed to obtain a consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 11:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Between the three films Titanic has more candidates my freand, be reasonable.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If you think the current version is not true or reduce its value buddy i have no urge in this matter, Titanic don't need to exaggerate, this is a visual masterpiece and i sow this movie more than three hundred times, i wanted to help the article only for better recognition. one more subject, i think terms like enormous is a little puerile. sorry any way!--Bakhshi82 (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't change again until an agreement reached, thanks.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks my dear for the notice, i thank you infinitely and hope to be eminent--Bakhshi82 (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreement has already been reached. It's you who keeps going against it. Flyer22 (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Trying to understand why you deleted one of my contributions.

I recently added Krist Novoselic to the list of American vegetarians after I came across the information by chance. My entry was soon deleted by, if I'm not mistaken, you, with stated reason "Circular source i.e. source uses Wikipedia."

The place where I found this information was http://www.search.com/reference/Krist_Novoselic#_note-2. This page in turn cites Azerrad, Michael. Come as You Are: The Story of Nirvana. Doubleday, 1993. ISBN 0-385-47199-8, p. 55 for this piece of information (not Wikipedia). It's not that I find the entry of Krist Novoselic in the list of vegetarians to be so important, but I am new to Wikipedia and I want to take this opportunity to learn from my mistake. So, can you give me some more accurate explanation of why you deleted my entry? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wawawemn (talk • contribs) 22:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That article is a copy of the Wikipedia article so it's a circular reference, which is prohibited. All Wikipedia articles are supposed to get their information from other sources, but even when they do you still can't use a Wikipedia article as your source. You can use the source the Wikipedia article uses directly, but only if you have verified it. Betty Logan (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast response.

The part about Krist Novoselic's vegetarianism is not in Wikipedia's Krist Novoselic article. The only explanation I can think of regarding why you say this is that it used to be, in an older version of his article. If such is the case, I apologize. I have not read the source article (the Come as You Are book) myself, so I gather I can't use that one. But there's another book that talks about this that I have personally read so I'll use that one to redo my contribution. Thanks for the clarification. Wawawemn (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles on Wikipedia change all the time so content comes and goes for a variety of reasons, but the policy also applies to articles that source Wikipedia even if they don't explicitly transclude content. If you have another source then by all means add the content back to the article, but please make sure it complies with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Betty Logan (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts

Looking through your contributions I notice that there are many cases in which you have undone an edit without explanation. This makes it impossible for other editors to know why you objected to a particular contribution, and (in cases like this one) is potentially confusing to new users making good faith edits. Please try to add edit summaries to all your edits in future. Thanks, NotFromUtrecht (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There are also many edits where I include an edit summary. Edit summaries are really only required when they are asked for, and advisable when the reasons are not self-explanatory. It's ultimately an issue of personal judgment and preference, and I actually think edit summaries are counter-productive in most cases because they might discourage editors from checking the edits themselves. Betty Logan (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Changes with no explanation actually encourage editors to assume that they're vandalism, especially when made by an IP or by a red-link. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Which is a good thing, because anyone can hide crap behind an edit summary. Such an assumption would hopefully encourage editors to check the edit. Betty Logan (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Without an edit summary, a user would be inclined to revert it with, "No explanation for changes." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they would be inclined considering the fact that the majority of edits on Wikipedia don't include edit summaries, and from my personal experience I haven't found that to be the case. Personally speaking, I'm inclined to find out what the edit involved on articles I watch. Anyone can write anything in an edit summary, so it is better to check the edit than take it on face value. In the particular case that was brought up here, the IP had made a sequence of edits adding unsourced content. I reverted his edits (about half a dozen or so), leaving an edit summary for his first edit. I didn't include edit summaries on the subsequent reverts, prefering instead to leave an outline of editing guidelines at the IP's talk page: User talk:86.42.5.217. I think I took adequate action to communicate my concerns to the IP editor, and on those articles where I didn't include an edit summary it's very clear from checking the edit that I removed unsourced content that had just been added. Betty Logan (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously there is value in inspecting edits themselves rather than taking edit summaries at face value. But I don't agree with your argument that the reason for each edit is in someway self-evident, and will become immediately clear to anyone who examines the page diff. How was I supposed to know that the reasons for this unexplained revert were that 'from [your] past experience' 'Some editors think that "above $150 mil" includes $150 mil, so it is better to be explicit'? That's your personal opinion, based on your experience, not something which is self-explanatory.

In this edit you have today reverted two edits by an IP user with no previous contributions. You did not provide an edit summary, and you have not left a message on the IP user's talk page. How is this user supposed to understand why you reverted them? It is quite an assumption to think that the IP user will be to infer the reason. My concern is that such activities will be extremely off-putting to new editors of Wikipedia. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's clearly self-evident to any editor that you don't pull entries currently occupying a position in a chart just to make room for a new entry. There was nothing to stop them just adding the new entry without removing one. Betty Logan (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Had you provided a proper edit summary, you wouldn't have needed to provide an explanation here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not providing a reason for the revert, I'm providing a reason for not providing a reason. Betty Logan (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If someone were to start following your edits, and come here with a question every time you revert without an edit summary, maybe your light bulb would start to come on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason for your edits may be quite obvious to you, but there are very many editors who are not you. To give an edit summary is to give helpful information to other editors. bobrayner (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

We'll have to just agree to disagree. Edit summaries are discretional, and some editors are indifferent to using them. Betty Logan (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Rather than trying to enact vigilante justice, which is certainly tempting, if the editor continues to do this then a trip to WP:ANI is probably called for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Armbrust has given you a brownie! Brownies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a brownie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread more WikiLove, install the WikiLove user script.

The Wikipedia idiot's guide to documenting plagiarism/inspiration/similarities to other work

I beg you - please write this as an essay we can refer to. If nothing else, the title is friggin hilarious. Millahnna (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That being said, in the interests of civility might I recommend "editor" or "newcomer" rather than "idiot"? Doniago (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Ruin all my fun why don't you. Of course you're totally right, but still. :P Millahnna (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ruining other editors' fun is one of the primary obligations of a WikiImp. Mission accomplished! :) Doniago (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh god. I'm totally a wikiimp. I had no idea. That page is a riot. Millahnna (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I fixed your comment for you. ;) Doniago (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There's already a book series called "The Complete Idiot's Guide To...", so I'd be more concerned about plagiarism than about "civility". Although the title could be considered a parody, so plagiarism might not be an issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That was hilarious! While it may go against Wikipedia's standards on peaceful conversation, it needed to be said. I do believe that Namasaya was a troll, however, so if you see posts from him again, just ignore them. (Wikipedian1234 (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC))

Opinion from regs needed

I am pinging you because you have over 150 edits at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, and have edited the page this month. I have gotten no responses at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Template:WikiProject_Awards and need some to resume a major cleanup project I have been doing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		I thereby award you with this Barnstar for creating the templates for the snooker world rankings pages. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 14:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Armbrust, just a shame we can't automatically sort the code isn't it? I was experimenting with the idea last summer but ran out of time once the season started, I'll probably have another go this summer. Betty Logan (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Well I think, that the template can addition, is a big forward step. For me it's not a problem, that the template don't sort automatically. Anyway I like to sort the table manually. :) Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 21:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't Look Now GA reiview

Hi, I've reviewed Don't Look Now against the GA criteria and am happy that it meets them, so have listed it as a good article. I've left some suggestions & comments at the review page. I can see you've put a great deal of work into it, so good job! --BelovedFreak 19:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look at your comments. I noticed you doing a bit of copy-editing so thanks for that. I listed it for a review on the Film project a month ago, but there's a bit of a backlog and the film has seen substantial traffic over the last week, so thanks for taking care of that. Betty Logan (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Pina Menichelli article review

Dear Betty Logan, I would like to thank you for editing and formatting my article about Pina Menichelli. Your feedback was very useful, and I shall develop the article along the lines you suggested. Keep up the good work! Kind Regards, Jnorthdur (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting read, so I don't mind helping out with a bit of style and formatting, it looks like it's going to be a really good article. Silent cinema is unfortunately slightly neglected on Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Jason Voorhees

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jason Voorhees. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

I suggest you review the guidelines relative to WP:BRD. You clearly interrupted the consensus process to impose your own edits. You should also review WP:DE Disruptive editing as a failure to engage in consensus building is a clear violation of that guideline. In future, kindly work with other editors in seeking consensus and refrain from disruptive behavior. X4n6 (talk) 04:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

How is it possible to edit-war or violate 3rr when I've only made a single edit? Betty Logan (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

3RR does not require 3 edits. Perhaps you should review the rules before you start posting templates. You also violated the spirit of a standing BRD and engaged in disruptive and unilateral edits instead of seeking consensus as other editors were trying to do. Now your latest bogus claim against me is just more proof of your disruptive editing tactics and your ridiculously childish, petty, spiteful and unhelpful temperament. Your disruptive behavior is clear and will be thoroughly discussed with the admins. X4n6 (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

An edit-war isn't started by an editor making an edit, or even an editor reverting an edit, it starts when an editor reverts an edit that reverted them, so I haven't edit-warred. If you disagree then file a case. Betty Logan (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This may interest you

Betty, hi. After you left a note, I rechecked and found you had made a very valid point about my mistaken assessment of the situation. I have blocked the editor who had been reported originally too. However, I have not unblocked Bignole as I believe Bignole has been a party to the edit warring in as much as has been the reported editor. There is generally no excuse for reverting continuously, and checking the reversions since yesterday, I found five reversions that were rebound reverts based on the bad sourcing issue. Please do note that crossing the 3RR is not allowed even if one wishes to revert a poorly sourced detail (unless it is a clear BLP issue or the article is featured on the Main Page). Even in case of BLP issues, it is better to report the issue to the BLP noticeboard than to revert. If there are any further clarifications, please feel free to contact me on my talk page as I may not be watching your talk page. My apologies for the inconvenience this issue may have caused you. Kind regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 07:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Maybe I could have structured the case better, since they were reverting different aspects of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason to apologize. I am guilty of reverting more than 3 times, that was sure and I did not deny it. I was more caught off guard that it was found that my edits were blatant reverts while the other editors were not, when I was actually editing some of his stuff to make it usable in the article. It was not your fault that I reverted more than 3 times, it was mine for not paying attention to my own actions. In any case, it is over now and the admins have saw fit to give me a break given the nature of the situation. I'll have to be more attentive to my actions in the future though and not get sucked into petty squabbles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Titanic

This is not the version that i was agreed? meanwhile unless my description was incorrect?--Bakhshi82 (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The version I restored is the version that was agreed in the discussion here; we decided to get rid of all the weasel wording. Secondly your version is not accurate, since if a film equals a record how can it be the *only* film to do so? By definition two films at least hold the record. In Titanic's case three films share the oscar record. However, if you are dissatisified with the current version then start a new discussion and form a new consensus, since that was how the current one was formed. Betty Logan (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm busy now but i'll see you on the page, my edit was correct, think about.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Nonce perusal this tables:

Per Most Oscar Wins Film Oscars Nominees Titanic 11 14 Ben-Hur 11 12 The Lord of the Rings III 11 11

Per Most Nominations Film Nominees Oscars Titanic 14 11 All About Eve 14 6 Gone with the Wind 13 8

Note: My friend if you get into precision you will see Titanic is only film that received both most nominations and Oscars, please.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Your own tables show otherwise: two films tie the nominations record and three films tie the wins record so it's obviously not the only film to hold those records. Betty Logan (talk) 15:statistics51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Which three films tie the nominations record? whoud you please mention this three films?--Bakhshi82 (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

My dear Titanic is the most acclaimed film of the Oscars ever and we shouldn't hide the reality, thanks.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

My talk page isn't the place for a discussion about Titanic. If you want to discuss this further start a discussion on the article talk page please. Betty Logan (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I want to entreaty please do not reject a copyedit until you don't know this is true or not, we don't need to consensus for the facts or statistics. My deepest thanks to you my dear partner.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Darkness2005

Hello,
can I have your opinion, concerns, and maybe conditions you have regarding this unblock request?
Amalthea 21:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Titanic

You wrote: No-one in this dispute has acted improperly other than Bakhshi! is this circumstances?--Bakhshi82 (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Betty i apologize you seriously, when i reverted Frank i removed your comment unintentionally! because we was editing in a same time, excuse me.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Thanks for the support there, but it seems equal blame has shifted to me. Some administrators don't see what we see, I suppose. Flyer22 (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree with them that you harrassed Bakhsi, and if they believe that we acted improperly towards him then fair enough, but ultimately the real root of the problem was Bakshi's refusal to engage in discussion so I'm disappointed that hasn't been addressed. I don't think they really appreciated the difficulty of the situation, that while editors were trying to come to an agreement on the wording another editor was undermining efforts by edit-warring and point blank refusal to discuss his edits. When I filed the WP:AN3 report on him it wasn't picked up, so in the end we did the best we could without the support we asked for. If we were rude at all, then it's because we were becoming increasingly frustrated by Bakshi's refusal to discuss the edits. Betty Logan (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Betty. I take comfort in the fact that only one editor stated that I harassed Bakhshi82. Flyer22 (talk) 04:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Flyer, I think both you and Bakshi kept the ping-pong match going longer than you probably should have, but I don't recall seeing anything that constituted harrassment. Bakshi's editing of Talk page posts was clearly inappropriate. The threats were as well, but I believe the more severe ones were retracted after an Admin(?) spoke to Bakshi on the matter. Frankly, regardless of how "right" it might have been, I would have been happy if all conversation on the matter had stopped (at least on the Titanic page) after I pointed out that it seemed to be moving beyond the scope of improving the article. Anyway, this is a somewhat unqualified opinion, but as a perpetual Devil's Advocate, I think you should have let it go (or escalated it to the admins while dropping direct involvement as much as possible) sooner, Flyer. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand your feelings, Doniago. Not an unqualified opinion at all. I feel that I did drop it, though. I stated that while I would not be removing my comments, I was done. It was Bakhshi82 who kept pressing. This only came up again after he waited a few days and then continued to edit/remove my comments. I wasn't even the one reverting him, except that one time yesterday. He needed to be reported, and, since I didn't see that anyone else had reported him at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (which is the place that made/makes the most sense to me to report him at), I decided to report him. I would have weighed in there regardless of who reported him anyway, and an editor still would have likely called me out as equally at fault. Or made this simply about a content dispute. Bakhshi82 has continued to harass me about removing my comments, and still...nothing has been done about it. But all of this is how Wikipedia has mostly been these days -- largely unhelpful regarding such matters. Most of what is stated in this discussion is why I am just about done with Wikipedia as it is. It's not a place I like much at all anymore. Flyer22 (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you look at my Talk page you can see I've been involved in my own fair share of ridiculous (to my mind) situations, though at the same time I haven't necessarily handled all of them with the grace I might have. I just don't think there's any way to be a long-term editor on WP who actually cares about the content and does any substantive edits without eventually being drawn into some level of "drama". My best advice would be to strongly consider whether anything you can say is likely to make a constructive difference; if it isn't, don't respond; it doesn't matter whether you're right, because they're not listening anyhow. You can always try to enlist other editors via Project pages, WP:CNB or WP:3O if you feel you're the sole sane voice in a discussion as well. As I said, I think in this situation you may have gotten overly-involved, but in general I consider you a very positive contributor to the project, and I hope you won't let this one situation drag you down. I found it...well, "amusing" isn't the right word...flattering? heh...that both you and Bakshi directly asked me to get involved in the discussion, while I'd been trying very hard to stay out of it. Didn't realize I was so highly-regarded. (smile) Anyway, I hope you'll stick around, and again, while I don't think you were completely blameless in this situation, I certainly don't think you did anything particularly horrible or incomprehensible either. Chin up! Doniago (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Like I stated in that linked discussion to my talk page, dispute resolution hasn't been working too well for me (sometimes not at all); it just feels so inactive these days. And oh no, I didn't ask you to get involved in my drama with Bakhshi82. I asked you to weigh in on the design of the lead (when it seemed that Ring Cinema and I would not be able to work past our differences). And I asked because you look after/contribute to that article, as well as other film articles. I do hold you in high regard when it comes to editing such articles (and if I was familiar with any other types of articles you look after/edit, I'm sure I would state the same about you in that light as well). All in all, thank you for the advice. I appreciate it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem! (smile) Oops, sorry; I remembered the message but apparently forgot what it pertained to. (blush) Agreed that sometimes it seems that paradoxically those who are here to address drama are among the most drama-avoidant... As for what articles I tend to edit, feel free to review my contributions. (laughs) Doniago (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Some Assistance

Titanic is not showing up on my watchlist the last few days, even when there are new edits. Are you seeing any issues with that? --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

That sounds strange, it seems to be operating correctly on my watchlist. When I've had issues with edits not showing up on my watchlist it's usually down to a stale page in my cache, so it might be worth deleting all the files in your web cache and see if that makes any difference. Betty Logan (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

IP editor and the Egg links

Since I noticed you were cleaning up after this anon editor too... Do those edits seem really familiar to you? I feel like this might be a blocked user that was discussed at the film project but can't place it (or they are just common enough edits and I'm a paranoid idiot). You've been around longer than I have so I thought I'd ask you before I went to the project page with it. Millahnna (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

When I saw the edits on the Lethal Weapon articles I thought maybe it was User:Bambifan101 but Martial Arts films seem to pretty far removed from his MO, and I think this is actually a genuine editor not acquainted with the editing guidelines. There is no real vandalism going on, just a bit of poor editing but there are a quite a lot of good clean up edits in there too. The only real problem is specifying the sub-genres and WP:EGG links and some WP:OVERLINK too; none of these actually corrupt the information on the article, but obviously it would be better if he didn't do it. I only reverted the clear-cut cases because I didn't want to partially undo good edits, and I didn't really want to spend all evening patching them up either. I don't think there is a need to alert the Film project unless he actively starts to revert the corrective edits. Betty Logan (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I think Bambi is who I was thinking of and no he wasn't into the martial arts flicks. Other than removing a few references and the egg links (most of which were already in place on the Hong Kong movies), IP did more good than harm. Like you, I didn't want to remove the good parts of his edits so I just manually fixed the links and flag icons (I probably missed some overlinking). I only saw a few spots where it seemed appropriate to flat out revert and you got most of those. Thanks for putting a name to who I was thinking of, though. At this point, it was just driving me crazy not to be able to pull it out of my poor old brain (like spotting a "hey it's that guy" actor and not being able to recall what you recognize them from). See you round the film pages. Millahnna (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

He hit the ground running today so I've left him a message. Betty Logan (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Which apparently he has paid no attention to... :/ --BelovedFreak 13:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Which brings me to another question: am I wrong in thinking that changing the date on maintenance tags is not a great idea? It seems like it could mess up the whole "work through the backlog" concept. Not that many people actually do that (I started to with plots and then my brain exploded somewhere in mid-2007) and not that it's the biggest problem in the world on some articles but still... My mind is instinctively rebelling against the concept. Millahnna (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, bad idea, although that could be a good faith misundertanding of the purpose of dating the tags. Trouble is, this IP doesn't seem to want to communicate.--BelovedFreak 13:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well he's cleaning up the egg links himself, now. So I think he's seeing his talk page messages but not the edit summaries. Maybe? Millahnna (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully. I've started a thread at WT:FILM just in case, so that others can keep an eye on things too but hopefully it's just an over-enthusiastic new editor who wants to help out.--BelovedFreak 13:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Don't Look Now soundtrack.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Don't Look Now soundtrack.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You can delete it. I originally uploaded it to illustrate the soundtrack but replaced it with an audio sample. Betty Logan (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Question

Do you think, that source cheating is becoming Wikipedia's new problem? Well I certainly think it is and encounter it even more often. Do think somebody should write an essay on it? Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 23:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have noticed it a lot in the last six months, but it might just because I look for it more now. I think more and more vandals are wising up that something needs to "look" sourced otherwise it gets pulled, so it makes sense that source cheating is increasing. It's just like an arms race or a superbug—vandals adapt to their environment and the good ones develop more sophisticated techniques to evade detection. There are three types I have indentified:

1. Editors puts claims into sourced sentences and paragraphs; this may be not be actual source cheating, but it has the same consequence in that something looks sourced when it isn't.
2. The second type is when editors have a credible source but misrepresent what it says, or claims it says something when it doesn't; sometimes this may be based on misunderstanding, but on other occasions it is deliberate.
3. The worst kind is when editors construct a fake reference or replicate one already present in the article to make their claims look sourced.

All you can do is assume that content will not always match up the source, so every online source needs to be checked. The real problem is with offline sources; we are obliged to comply with WP:AGF so all you can do is tag the source with {{verify source}}: Betty Logan (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Srry

Hey sorry for breaking the link, i was using a semi-automated program(Lupins anti-vandal tool and did not see that i was spellchecking a link —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moneya (talk • contribs) 17:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the explanation, but if this tool is correcting spelling mistakes in URLs it might be best if you don't use it. Betty Logan (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Wachowski

We got one article in one paper indicating the change, meanwhile we got all the other evidence indicating no change. I reverted 'Lana'. Lots42 (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no interest in the article. I was reverting edits by a sock so if you want to restore his edits that's your prerogative. Betty Logan (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Don't Look Now 2.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Don't Look Now 2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 05:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I replaced this photo with a PD photo on Wikimedia Commons; I figured the article didn't have to show her in character so used that one instead. Betty Logan (talk) 05:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Snow Prince article assessment

Hi Betty Logan,

You have recently assessed the article Snow Prince and gave me feedback on where I should improve the article. I have taken most of your suggestions and have made changes to meet the suggestions. I hope that you can take a look at the article again and see if they fulfill your criteria. Also, I have made some notes besides some suggestions that I did not take up on, and can you see that if you agree with my reasoning? If you have any other suggestions, please tell me. Thanks!! -- Lionratz (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The coverage is much better but the sourcing still needs a bit of work. I've left comments on the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy response!! I have made the necessary changes that you suggested. Can you see if you agree? Also, you have misunderstood me when I said, "I am only making use of the review, and it is not required to source reviews.". I am actually intending to type,"I don't think it is required to source the Plot section, as the primary source is the film itself." This is aimed at your doubts about the source "movieexclusive.com". Sorry for my oversight. Thanks! -- Lionratz (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No you, don't need to source the plot section. It's probably best to remove a non-reliable source for something you don't need to source. Betty Logan (talk) 07:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I made a little addition to this article. Can you see if it fulfills your expectations? Lionratz (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I just don't think it has the depth of detail to be a 'B' class article. If you compare it to this B class article you will see there is a substantial difference in coverage. The criteria for B class says the coverage must leave "Readers are not left wanting", and I don't think it meets that criteria. The coverage of the actual production phase isn't comprehensive enough IMO. Other editors may disagree of course, so I suggest you re-list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Assessment#Requests_for_assessment and get a second opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sock

Just wondering who the Jimmyson14 sockmaster is? Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GeordieWikiEditor Betty Logan (talk)

Thanks for the reply. You hadn't tagged him yet, so I was just wondering if I could help. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it took me a few minutes to find the sock templates. Betty Logan (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Steve Davis/GA1

Steve Davis is going through a GA review, and is on hold for 14 days to allow time to deal with the issues listed on the review page. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 13:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Armbrust has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. †

• Thanks Armbrust, and sorry about reverting you, but you missed out the licence attribution! Betty Logan (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

  No worries. I don't do merges and simply missed it. Thanks for correcting. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 21:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Louisville, Kentucky

Resolved

 – Discussion moved to article talk page.

I'm sorry, but I've had to revert all the recent edits to Louisville, Kentucky. I don't see a point with all those tags, and the reversion of perfectly good content for an inapplicable rationale. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The point of the tags is notify readers and editors of unsourced content. There are huge amounts of information which are unreferenced. You asked what the problems where, so I have taken a closer look at the article. All the tags are applicable and you shouldn't remove them without addresisng the problems. Betty Logan (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Please address the problems without tagging the article like ornaments on a Christmas tree. It just isn't necessary. I will remove them as long as "legally" allowed to. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The tags exist to highlight problems with the article, of which there are many. If the tags bother you the best course of action is to address the problems. Huge amounts of unsourced claims and statistics are no foundation for an article. By removing tags that have been applied to unsourced content, you are violating Wikipedia policies so I suggest you leave them be. Betty Logan (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Please cease. This obvious antipathy toward the subject of the article will only move this case to mediation. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I will make a deal with you. I won't tag the whole article on two conditions: 1) A general "Ref improve" tage is placed at the top of the article; 2) The unsourced content that was added this evening which I removed, and which you then re-added is removed and not added back in until a proper source is provided. Betty Logan (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't this issue be much better argued out on the article's talk page? I have taken the liberty of copying it there. Exok (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Deathly Hallows Part 2 Marketing.

Hi there,

You seem to continually remove information about Deathly Hallows Part 2, and the marketing it is currently doing. If you could find a better source for the current information on the TV spots/Trailers and Posters, please do so, in order to move past this dissagreement that editors are going through. In the mean time I think this information should stay, as it is current, and the provided sources do provide the evidnence.

B.Davis2003 (talk) 05:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not a case of whether I have "better" sources, but of what types of sources Wikipedia permits. Sources cannot be self-published (i.e. they cannot be fansites), they must have professional oversight (a hired staff), and they must have reputation for fact-checking (i.e. other reliable sources cite them). If they don't meet those criteria then they are simply not permissable; it's a policy issue not a consensus issue. Betty Logan (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

DH Part 2

Thanks for setting up the head count for the split! The article is way to crammed at the present time, and would look far better in two seperate articles, I'm glad we have finally found something to agree on! :P B.Davis2003 (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It must be a good idea then! Betty Logan (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Must be lol!B.Davis2003 (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it safe to split the article now? It's currently 23-2, so it's obvious that the majority of readers want it split. Can we go ahead and do it now, or do you want to wait ? Oh and the article should be named "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1" as that is the title of the film as stated on the Part 1 Blu-ray in the copyright text at the bottom of the case. Hallows Horcruxes 17:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks pretty much decided, we're over 20 votes now. I've posted a formal move request so an admin will come along and view thge situation. Betty Logan (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter split

I just want to say sorry if you didn't approve of the way I did it. Not everyone approved of the c&p approach and normally I don't either. That was the main reason I stated that I was freaked out. So if there is any copyright concerns I apologize! P.S. you might want to move your merge request to the one part article though if it stays. Happy editing. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It's come out ok. The problem with cut and paste jobs is that the edit histories become lost, but you can easily fix that with a copyright attribution in the edit summary. It should be ok now, and personally I'm glad I didn't have to do it myself. Betty Logan (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes it was hard work and sort of time consuming. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude this space, but what about the soundtrack and video game articles ? Should they be split too ? Hallows Horcruxes 21:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It might be a good idea given the split with the film article, but the album/computer game projects are under no obligation to follow the structure of the film articles. They have to decide for themselves, but it might be a good idea to notify their projects of the film article split so they can review the situation. Betty Logan (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Good question. Noticing the video game it is primarily part one with a part two section that can be moved on the part two film article until it has room to go. So that one looks easier to where you can just rename the article and just move the part two section out of it until it is deserving of the article. The same with the soundtrack (just move the part two section out of the way and it will primarily be part one. And part two should just move into the film article until it's ready to be split with it's own article. Then all the part one version needs is a name move.) But consensus might be recommended first. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll see about splitting it sometime in the future. But for now, we have a problem. The Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 article has suddenly gone to being a redirect to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film)! Hallows Horcruxes 06:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you both know, the move Jhenderson777 carried out was reverted this morning due to a copyvio situation. Therefore, the requested move Betty Logan made was sorted by an administrator; we now have a Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 article and a Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 article, so all is well. :) Hallows Horcruxes 08:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Betty, The Hobbit (2012 film) is a similar situation to Deathly Hallows. It's a two-part film, but it's still early in the process. Do you think we should tackle a split for that article too? (I'm thinking that we should probably split Kill Bill too at some point to set a precedent and show how it helps flesh out coverage from separate releases.) Erik (talk | contribs) 13:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The so called "revert" was necessary. Remember my edit was just a preview of what should it should start out as and so basically it is the same still right now. It definitely needed to be moved by a administrator as I said on your move request. I also let a administrator restore edits to the part two article so all is fine like HH said. As for "The Hobbit" I will respond to that when I am not busy with real life. :)Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I've left my comments at the Film Project. Betty Logan (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a sock

I'm not a sock. That used to be my username. Just updating to my current user so in future people may contact me through this user. --Victory93 (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed was renamed to "Victory93" here if you like. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

As you can see I had my username changed. --Victory93 (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it up. While you are changing your talk links it might be worth putting a temporary message on your talk page so that other editors know you are the same editor so it's clear what you are doing. You obviously aren't doing anything wrong, but it would help prevent further confusion. Betty Logan (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Question?

Hi Betty! I have a question. Do you have access to old Snooker Scene magazine editions? Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 21:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid not, I don't get it. Are you just after old issues in general or one specific issue, because it may be worth asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request? Betty Logan (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Made a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#Snooker Scene. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 17:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If it is just snooker results that are needed this book might be better: http://www.amazon.co.uk/CueSport-Book-Professional-Snooker-Complete/dp/095485490X. Snooker Scene might not even have a complete record anyway (it only lists teh ranking results on its website), but this book looks really good for snooker results. Amazon says it is out of print but I will check my library computer tomorrow and if it's on the system I will order the book. Betty Logan (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, currently no need for complete results. Only the result of the final is needed. Just moments 45 minutes ago find one for the Kit-Kat Break for World Champions on Google News Archive and still searching. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 19:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should send these guys a bill: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/images/6133646810/ref=dp_image_text_0?ie=UTF8&n=266239&s=books Betty Logan (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dr No

I notice you're a fairly regular editor of the Dr. No article. I'm interested in getting this back to being on the WikiProject Good Articles list. I've got Nehrams2020 agreeing to copyedit the article and provide more specifics on areas for improvement. They have suggested starting with the citations, which is why I've been working on those over the last week or so. If you can see any flaws or think something should be cited, or that the article needs something adding (or taking away) I'd appreciate any thoughts you may have. Thanks!--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 08:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll check through it over the next couple of days. Betty Logan (talk) 09:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is my initial review: Talk:Dr. No (film)#Review Betty Logan (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)